Read the commentary

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: passages are aligned by VRI paragraph number, checked against quoted words, unmatched passages are omitted, results are paginated by segment, and the tool works offline.

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?

The description is dense but well structured and front-loaded with the resource being read. The list of commentary collections and the alignment details earn their place, though the final 'Works offline' sentence is brief and low-cost.

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?

For a read-only commentary retrieval tool with a fully described input schema and no output schema, the description covers source edition, alignment behavior, omission of unmatched passages, pagination, and offline operation. It could say more about the exact return shape, but the essential call and interpretation context are present.

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 description coverage is 100%, so uid, limit, and offset are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces pagination by segment but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb, 'Read', and a precise resource, the traditional Pāli commentary in the VRI Chaṭṭha Saṅgāyana edition. It names major commentary collections and explicitly distinguishes commentary from canon, so an agent can tell what this tool retrieves and what it does not.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Read the traditional Pāli commentary on a text' and by the warning to keep commentary distinct from canon when quoting. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of sibling tools such as get_text, search_texts, or get_translation.

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