get_verse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return payload ('Sanskrit and available translations'), which usefully flags that translation coverage may vary. It says nothing about failure behavior for invalid kanda/chapter/verse values, whether numbering is 1-based, or rate limits, so gaps remain.

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 filler; the lookup keys and returned content are both stated compactly.

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?

For a simple three-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential who/what/returns. Only minor items are absent, such as error handling on invalid coordinates and the shape of the translations field.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters, and the baseline is 3. The description adds only the 'chapter (sarga)' equivalence, a small but real clarification for domain terminology.

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 (Fetch), a specific resource (a single verse), the exact lookup keys (kanda, chapter/sarga, verse number), and what comes back (Sanskrit plus translations). This clearly separates it from list_kandas, get_sarga, search_verses, and verse_of_the_day without needing to name them.

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 is only implied: the coordinate-based phrasing signals 'use this when you already know the exact verse location.' There is no explicit when-to-use versus search_verses (partial text/unknown location) or verse_of_the_day, and no stated prerequisites.

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