verify_quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies return values (verbatim source text + citation, or NOT FOUND), tolerance for vishraam/punctuation/spelling differences, and guarantees that returned text is always the source's own. This is unusually transparent for a simple verification tool.

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?

Three focused sentences deliver all necessary information without redundancy. The most critical instruction is front-loaded ('ALWAYS call this'), and every sentence contributes a distinct, valuable point.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It covers purpose, unambiguous usage guidance, return behavior, tolerances, and a post-condition for NOT FOUND, making it fully self-contained for an AI agent.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by clarifying the input is a quote under authenticity review and that spelling/vishraam/punctuation differences are tolerated. It stops short of 5 because it provides no additional format or encoding requirements beyond 'Gurmukhi quote'.

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's function: checking whether a Gurmukhi quote is authentically present in the source scripture. It uses a specific verb ('verify') and resource, and is easily distinguished from sibling tools like search_gurbani or get_line, which retrieve rather than authenticate.

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?

Provides an explicit and prominent instruction: ALWAYS call before presenting any Gurmukhi quote not directly from another tool's result. This clearly defines when to use the tool, and the NOT FOUND consequence prevents misuse of unverified quotes.

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