Paritta chants

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful traits beyond that: the texts come from a bundled VRI edition, include canonical citations and English translation links, and the tool works offline. It still does not describe pagination or return shape, but the safety profile is already covered.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with corpus and source, followed by the no-name listing behavior and offline note. The parenthetical list is long but directly supports discovery, and there is no 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 read-only lookup tool with 100% schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the key corpus, source, translation-link, and offline context. It leaves out explicit sibling routing and pagination mechanics, but the schema covers the latter.

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 name, text, limit, and offset are fully documented in the schema. The description only repeats the no-name listing behavior and adds no syntax or selection detail for text, limit, or offset beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

It names the exact corpus (Paritta and named recitations), source edition (bundled VRI), language (Pāli), and accompanying citations/English links. That is specific enough to separate it from generic text tools, although it never states the retrieval verb outright.

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?

The only explicit guidance is "Call with no name to list the set", which tells how to list but not when to choose this tool over search_texts, get_text, or get_translation. The niche corpus implies usage, but alternatives and exclusions are not named.

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