get_shabda_forms

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for disclosing result-shape behavior beyond the annotations: 24 case/number slots with alternatives and empty slots preserved, which tells the agent not to expect a normalized/compacted paradigm.

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 tight sentences with the core retrieval behavior front-loaded and the vibhakti convention appended. Nothing is wasted, though the vocab/convention aside could be folded more economically.

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?

An output schema exists so return structure is partly covered, but a 7-parameter query tool with zero schema descriptions leaves key semantics undocumented: filter meanings (linga/vacana/vibhakti), the query/by interaction, and pagination behavior. The description is too thin for this parameter surface.

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?

Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage, yet the description only glosses one value (vibhakti 8 = vocative). Domain terms like linga, vacana, and the by=text vs by=upstream_id switch, as well as limit/offset paging, are never explained, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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+resource: retrieving stored śabda paradigms. It distinguishes itself from get_shabda by promising the full paradigm (24 slots) rather than a single entry, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with get_dhatu_forms/search_shabdas.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_shabda or search_shabdas, and no stated prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the retrieval verb.

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