get_random_verse

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does convey the key random-selection behavior and implies a read-only operation, but it does not explain what is returned, whether the random choice is across all texts, or any error/edge-case behavior. The description adds some value but leaves gaps.

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?

One clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, and it effectively conveys the core operation and a key option.

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 low-complexity tool with two optional, fully documented parameters, the description is largely complete. The main gap is the lack of return-format information, since no output schema exists, but 'random verse' strongly implies the return value is a verse.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of context by confirming 'text' is an optional filter, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a random verse from the classical yoga texts', which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_verse or search_verses by the word 'random'. It also mentions an optional filter by text, further clarifying scope.

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?

The purpose is clear, and 'optionally filtered by text' implies a conditional use, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings such as search_verses or get_verse. The usage context is implied by 'random' rather than directly stated.

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