Read post-canonical texts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable behaviour: it works offline, results are flagged canonical: false, VRI variant readings are raw notes, and PTS page lookup is impossible for the Visuddhimagga. It says nothing about how segments are returned or how pagination interacts with citation lookups.

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?

Front-loads the core action and scope, then layers citation formats and caveats in one dense paragraph. The parenthetical citation examples are numerous but each maps to a distinct supported form. Slightly example-heavy, but no sentence is filler.

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 four-parameter, no-output-schema tool with a non-trivial citation grammar, the description covers the modes of use, the special listing keywords, the labelling guarantee and a known limitation. The main omission is any indication of what a returned segment contains or how limit/offset continuation behaves in practice.

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 100%, so the four parameters are already documented, and much of the citation grammar in the description duplicates the schema's own citation description. The description does add a small amount beyond the schema: the special "/"tika" and "anna"" citation values and their listing behaviour. That incremental value is real but modest.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ("Read a post-canonical Pāli book of the VRI edition") and enumerates the covered works (Visuddhimagga, Abhidhammatthasaṅgaha, Ṭīkā, other later works). It also draws a hard boundary against canonical texts ("Not the canon: every result is labelled canonical: false"). It stops short of naming the obvious sibling search_post_canonical as the alternative for discovery, so sibling differentiation is partial.

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?

Gives concrete invocation modes: a citation for a specific passage, an id such as "mahavamsa 3", or an omitted citation/"tika"/"anna" to list books. It also sets a limitation ("Visuddhimagga PTS pages cannot be located"). However, it never states when to prefer a search tool over this one, so the boundary with search_post_canonical is left implicit.

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