search_verses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool returns matching verses and can filter by content, title, or transliteration. However, it does not mention result ordering, pagination, matching semantics, or any side effects, though for a search tool these omissions are moderate.

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 two short sentences with no filler or redundant phrasing. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and every clause adds meaningful information.

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 search tool with a simple required-query pattern and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It conveys the resource, scope, matching fields, and the fact that results are returned. It lacks explicit return-structure details, but no output schema exists and the absence is not critical for basic invocation.

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 four parameters. The description adds useful context about matching fields and text scope, but it does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation. 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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('verses'), and a well-defined scope ('across all classical yoga texts'). It also explains the matching dimensions ('content, title, or transliteration'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_verse, get_random_verse, and search_glossary.

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 description implies when to use the tool: when an agent needs to find verses by keyword across multiple texts. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, such as 'use get_verse for a specific verse by ID' or 'use search_glossary for term definitions.'

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