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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the tool 'returns' data, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or whether it is safe. The term 'verified' hints at some internal process but offers no details. For a tool with zero annotations, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the primary action and the output in a compact form. Every word contributes to meaning, making it appropriately concise and well-structured for a simple tool.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the return values represent. It says 'corpus counts and provenance metadata' but does not elaborate on what counts are included (e.g., total shayari count, language breakdowns) or what 'provenance' means. While the tool is simple, an agent might need more detail to interpret the output correctly. Given the lack of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves room for ambiguity.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4 as per the rules. The schema is empty, and the description does not need to explain parameters since none exist. The description adds no parameter-related information, but that is acceptable given the absence of parameters.

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 states a clear action ('return') and a specific resource ('verified corpus counts and provenance metadata'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools (search_shayari, search_research_shayari, get_shayari) which focus on retrieving shayari content, whereas this tool provides audit statistics. The verb and resource are specific enough for an agent to understand its unique purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for overall corpus statistics, nor does it exclude usage for searching or retrieving individual shayari. An agent has no context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred over the siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose filtering semantics ('active', 'Hindi-facing') but says nothing about error behavior — what happens when the ID doesn't exist or the record is inactive — nor the response shape. For a single-record fetch with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The core action and the key constraints ('active', 'Hindi-facing', 'by stable ID') all appear before any qualification, and every word earns its place.

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 simple get-by-id tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the parameter's meaning, and the selection constraint. It omits error/not-found behavior and return format, but given the low complexity these are minor gaps rather than blocking omissions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the useful semantic that the ID is 'stable' (a persistent identifier), which clarifies the parameter's nature, but it gives no format, origin, or example of a valid ID. The value added over the bare minLength:1 schema is minimal.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('shayari record'), and adds distinguishing constraints ('active', 'Hindi-facing', 'by stable ID'). This clearly differentiates it from the search siblings — an agent can tell get_shayari (fetch by ID) apart from search_shayari (query by criteria) without opening schemas.

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 implies the tool is for fetching a specific known record by ID, which suggests when it should be used over the search tools, but it never explicitly names the alternatives or states the condition for choosing one over the other. The contrast with search_shayari is implicit, not stated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'search' which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose whether the search has any side effects, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. It also doesn't explain what 'non-active' means in concrete terms or what kind of results are returned (e.g., does it return full records or just metadata?).

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose with the verb 'search' and resource, and includes the key qualifier 'source-valid but non-active' to clarify scope.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, no parameter description coverage, and no annotations, the description needs to provide more context to be complete. It doesn't explain the meaning of 'source-valid' and 'non-active', which are crucial for an agent to determine whether this tool is appropriate. It also doesn't specify the return format or any limitations beyond the implicit 'search'. With two parameters and no schema coverage, the description is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the schema provides no semantic meaning for the parameters. The description mentions 'query' contextually but doesn't explicitly describe either 'query' or 'limit' meaning. 'limit' is self-explanatory from the schema (max 100), but 'query' could benefit from clarification (e.g., what fields are searched). Since the schema lacks descriptions, the description should compensate but it doesn't provide any parameter-specific guidance.

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 states a specific verb ('search') and a specific resource ('source-valid but non-active research records'). It clearly distinguishes from 'search_shayari' by specifying the subset (non-active research records). However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative, which would have made it a 5.

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 implies when to use this tool (when searching for non-active research records) and indirectly suggests that 'search_shayari' is for active ones, but it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools. The guidance is clear enough for the primary use case but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'active' and 'owner-authorized' constraints, which is useful context for a search operation. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, authentication needs, or what happens when no results exist. It is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the purpose and key constraints efficiently. This is an example of good conciseness.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not differentiate from search_research_shayari, does not explain optional parameters, and does not describe the result format. An agent would struggle to use it correctly without additional context.

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 only 33% (only 'query' has a description). The tool description does not explain the 'poet' or 'limit' parameters, nor does it clarify the expected format of the query beyond what the schema says. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 states a specific action (search) and resource (Hindi Devanagari shayari text) with qualifiers 'active' and 'owner-authorized'. It distinguishes from siblings by implying filtering but does not explicitly name alternatives. It is not a tautology and provides a clear purpose.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus search_research_shayari or get_shayari. It implies a scope (active, owner-authorized content) but does not state conditions or alternatives. An agent would have to infer when to choose this over siblings.

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