Compare Translations

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint), description warns about current state: translation table mostly empty, only default Pāli+English loaded, `total_editions` usually 0, `text_pali` and `text_english` always populated, Thai editions coming later. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Well-structured with emojis, bullet points for usage, sibling comparison, format, and current state. Every section earns its place; not overly verbose. Could be slightly shorter but highly informative.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), description covers purpose, usage, parameter format, and current limitations. No need for output format explanation since output schema is present.

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 already documents `segment_id` as required string with description. Description adds valuable context: format with examples (mn1:171.4) and how to find segment_ids via `get_sutta` or search. This goes beyond 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?

Description clearly states the tool compares all available translations for a single segment, using specific verb 'compare' and resource 'translations'. It distinguishes from sibling `get_sutta` by targeting segment-level vs sutta-level.

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?

Explicit 'Use this tool when' section lists specific scenarios: meaning/translation queries, checking interpretations, academic work. Also includes comparison to `get_sutta` and provides segment_id format with example.

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