Text details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the payload contents — including the practically important translation_id for chaining into translation tools and a SuttaCentral parallels link — plus 'Works offline,' which tells the agent no network dependency exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a tightly packed return-field list followed by the 'Works offline' qualifier; no filler or repetition. The enumeration is long but each item is informative, so density serves the reader rather than padding.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so thoroughly, covering identifiers, structure pointers, and cross-links. Remaining gaps are minor for a one-parameter idempotent lookup: what happens when a uid cannot be resolved, and whether linked translations are always 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% and the uid parameter already documents an exhaustive citation grammar (MN 10, SN 56:11, PTS pages, Thai/Myanmar editions, suttacentral.net links). The description adds nothing about uid format, resolution precedence, or failure behavior beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource ('Details of one text') and enumerates exactly what is returned (title, collection, PTS range, VRI book/paragraphs, contained texts, linked translations, parallels link), which implicitly separates it from siblings like get_text, get_translation, and get_commentary. It lacks an explicit verb and never names a sibling, so differentiation must be inferred rather than stated.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives among the 30+ siblings. Usage is only implied by the returned-field list: an agent can infer this is the cheap reference/lookup step before calling get_text or get_translation, but that inference is left to the reader.

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