Find Dhamma talks

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds real context on top: results come from the site's own search, are link-only (titles, dates, URLs), and never include talk text. The qualifier that talks are commentary rather than scripture usefully sets expectations about what the returned material is. Pagination/rate behavior is left to the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose and lookup modes before the output contract. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With six optional parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value contract (titles, dates, URLs, no text) and the two input modes. Remaining gaps — limit, category semantics, cursor continuation — are adequately handled by the schema's own descriptions, so nothing critical is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is already 83%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by clarifying that query takes topic keywords and, more importantly, that passage accepts a canonical citation like 'MN 118' — a point the schema's own wording ('talks containing the title of Ṭhānissaro's translation are found') renders obscure. It also states the passage+query narrowing behavior, which the schema does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (find Dhamma talks) plus a tight scope: a named author, a named site, and two lookup modes (topic via query, passage via citation). This scoping implicitly separates it from siblings like search_texts, search_access_to_insight, and find_citations without the agent opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explains the two selection modes clearly (use query for a topic, passage for a citation such as MN 118) and notes that passage can be combined with query to narrow. It does not name a competing sibling tool or state when not to use this one, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.