Pātimokkha rule

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: the BMC is commentary and is 'linked only' rather than reproduced, and the tool 'works offline' — both essential to knowing what actually comes back and that no remote fetch occurs.

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?

One dense sentence that leads with what the rule is and follows with what is returned; the parentheticals all carry information. Slightly heavy with nested parentheses, but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does: canonical text, an attributed BMC link, and the note that commentary is link-only. Only the exact shape of the returned text/attribution is left unstated, a minor gap for a single-parameter lookup 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 100% and the schema already enumerates every rule range and accepted alternate formats (Bu Pc 5, Pācittiya 5, pli-tv-bu-vb-pc5). The description's examples restate what the schema documents, so it adds little beyond it; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource (a bhikkhu Pātimokkha rule) and states exactly what is returned: the canonical Vinaya text plus an attributed link to the relevant BMC section. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_text by saying the Pāli is 'read with get_text', so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is for looking up a rule you already have an identifier for (Pj 1, Ss 5, Np 18...). The pointer to get_text for reading the Pāli is helpful routing, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance versus get_text, get_commentary, or search_texts.

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