Resolve citation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: offline operation and the ambiguity fallback that lists candidates instead of failing. It does not discuss error handling for unresolvable references, which keeps it below 5.

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 transformation, then layers accepted input forms, then the script option, with no filler sentences. The list of return fields is long but each item tells the agent something it would otherwise have to discover by calling.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description compensates fully: it describes the return payload, accepted input shapes, script behavior, ambiguity handling, and offline capability. An agent can invoke this correctly without any further documentation.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining what `script` actually changes – it affects the script of returned Pāli titles while citations, IDs and English stay Roman. That is a real output-semantics detail the enum alone does not convey.

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?

States a specific transformation (reference → canonical text) and enumerates the output payload: title, PTS location, VRI paragraphs, translations, edition pages. It is very clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts itself with the similarly-named sibling find_citations, leaving that disambiguation to inference.

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 a clear context for use: any citation, PTS page, edition page, or link in any supported script, plus an explicit edge-case rule that ambiguous sutta names return candidates rather than a single guess. It offers no exclusion or 'use X instead' routing, which is the only thing separating it from a 5.

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