guard_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently explains that the tool verifies each Gurmukhi span and returns a verdict (verified / not found) with citations, making the primary behavior clear. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or edge cases, but these are reasonably inferred from 'audit' and 'returns'.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a usage note and expected output. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose—what it does, when to use it, and what it returns—with no wasted words.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete: it states the operation, usage context, and return format. It provides enough information for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional clarification.

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 schema description covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description ('Prose possibly containing Gurmukhi quotes'). The tool description adds context by referring to 'block of prose' and 'every Gurmukhi span' but does not significantly enrich the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool audits a block of prose, identifying and verifying Gurmukhi spans against scripture. The verb 'audit' and resource are specific, and the scope ('every Gurmukhi span') implies a batch operation, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_quote without naming them explicitly.

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 guidance is explicit: 'Use to check a drafted answer (or existing content) before presenting it.' This provides a clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some room for clarification.

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