Verify a quotation

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses what the annotations cannot: matching is fuzzy, Pāli coverage is the bundled Tipiṭaka searched offline, English coverage is a live network fetch limited to the named citations, and the result set is bounded by an explicit verdict vocabulary. That combination of coverage scope and live-fetch behavior is exactly what an agent needs before spending a call.

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 the core verb and purpose, with no filler. The dense semicolon stacking of gloss, scope, and return shape in one sentence makes it slightly harder to parse than necessary, but every clause carries 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?

There is no output schema, yet the description still names the return payload (best matches with citation and similarity, a verdict, and the searched scope), so an agent knows what comes back. Combined with the clarification of both search modes, nothing material is missing for a 4-parameter read-only tool.

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 75%, so the baseline sits at 3. The description does add meaning for 'texts' (English-only, defaulting to all Dhammapada chapters) and explains that 'language' routes between corpora, but 'limit' is only obliquely covered by 'returns the best matches' and the maxLength/minLength bounds are left to the schema.

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 verb and object ('Check whether a quotation attributed to the Buddha appears in the texts') and immediately distinguishes two operating modes that no sibling (search_texts, find_citations, get_text) offers — fuzzy verification rather than retrieval.

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 description makes the mode-selection rule explicit: Pāli quotations are checked against the whole offline canon, English ones only against the translations of the cited texts you name, defaulting to the Dhammapada. It lacks an explicit 'use this instead of search_texts when…' routing sentence, but the scope rules effectively tell an agent which situations this tool serves.

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