Read Pāli text

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description still adds real behavior: segment-based pagination for long texts, offline availability of the Pāli, commentary labelled as commentary rather than canon, and transliteration of the Roman edition into seven scripts. It does not describe the response envelope or how to detect the next offset in the paginated result, which is the main remaining gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its output features, then pagination, then translation and script options. Some content duplicates schema text, notably the script enumeration, but nothing is wasted at the sentence level.

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 an 8-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers return content, pagination, optional translation source, commentary inclusion and script behavior. What remains thin is error/fallback behavior for unresolvable citations and whether the response reports remaining segments after a page.

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% and each parameter already carries a detailed description (citation forms, variant semantics, ISO script codes), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only adds the pointer that translation_id comes from get_metadata and that the uid may itself be written in the target script; the rest restates the schema. Baseline 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 opening clause gives a specific verb and resource ("Read the Pāli text of a sutta or section (VRI edition)") and enumerates what comes back: paragraph numbers, PTS/Thai/Myanmar/VRI page breaks, variant readings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_translation or get_commentary, which overlap with its optional translation and commentary features.

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?

Clear usage context is present: use offset/limit for continuation since long texts are paginated, set translation to "default" or a translation_id from get_metadata, omit translation for Pāli only, and set script for non-Roman output. It never states when to prefer get_translation, get_commentary or search_texts instead, so there are no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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