search_verses

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 shape ('matching verse references with snippets'). However, it says nothing about result ranking/ordering, pagination beyond the limit param, or behavior when a language has no match, so behavioral coverage is partial.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the verb and scope and ends with the return format. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 two-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: scope, languages, and returned content. It could be stronger by noting ordering/ranking or default limit, but nothing critical to invoking it is missing.

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% (query and limit both documented with examples and bounds), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional parameter meaning such as matching semantics or how multi-language queries are handled, making the baseline 3 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 gives a specific verb (full-text search) and resource (verses) plus scope (Sanskrit and English/Hindi/Telugu translations), which separates it well from get_verse/get_sarga. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer that this is the discovery tool rather than the fetch tool.

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: 'full-text search' suggests using this when you have a phrase or name rather than a known verse reference, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no mention of the alternative retrieval tools like get_verse.

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