search_dhatus

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description does add one real behavioral fact: matching is literal/substring rather than semantic, and it scopes the searched fields. It says nothing about result ordering, total-count behavior, or what happens with noisy/multiword queries.

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 padding; the matching mode and field scope come first. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, which is a completeness problem, not a structural one.

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 values need not be explained, but for a search tool sitting among eleven siblings with zero schema parameter coverage and no usage routing, the single sentence leaves too much to inference. Pagination params and the alternative retrieval tools are never addressed.

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 carry the load; it partially does by stating that 'query' is matched against dhātu and meaning fields, which is the key semantic the schema omits. However, limit and offset (ranges, defaults, pagination interaction) get no mention, and match semantics (case sensitivity, whole-word vs substring) remain unstated.

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?

It names a verb (search) and a resource (dhātu) and signals the matching mode with 'literal lexical', which implies a contrast with relevance/semantic search over shabdas. But 'upstream dhātu and meaning fields' is unexplained jargon and it never names a sibling (get_dhatu, search_shabdas) to disambiguate scope.

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?

No when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_dhatu for a known entry or search_shabdas for word lookup. 'Literal lexical' only weakly implies the contrast; the agent must infer routing from sibling names.

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