Paṭṭhāna condition

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

Beyond the read-only, non-destructive annotations, it discloses that the data comes from bundled VRI text and that the tool works offline. It does not describe invalid-name handling or exact response formatting, but the source and offline behavior are useful operational context.

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 compact sentences cover the resource, outputs, source, listing mode, sibling handoff, and offline behavior without filler. The domain and resource are front-loaded, and each clause contributes useful selection or invocation information.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup, the description and fully documented schema together provide the accepted input forms, list behavior, expected content, provenance, and dictionary alternative. The absence of an output schema is adequately mitigated by the explicit enumeration of the returned information.

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 schema already documents Pāli names, numbers 1–24, and "all". The description's "Pass 'all' for the list" adds a convenient usage cue but largely repeats structured parameter information rather than supplying new semantics.

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 clearly identifies the resource as one of the Paṭṭhāna's 24 conditions and specifies the returned content: its Pāli name, definition location and text, and a dictionary lookup term. Although retrieval is implied rather than introduced with an explicit verb, the reference to lookup_pali also distinguishes it from the sibling dictionary tool.

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?

It explicitly directs agents to lookup_pali when an English dictionary meaning is needed, clarifying the boundary between the tools. It also explains that passing "all" produces the list, providing concrete guidance for the two principal invocation modes.

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