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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the internal retrieval mechanism (dense vector search + cross-encoder reranking), the breadth of sources, and the output format (detailed academic answers with citations). It does not mention potential limitations such as response time, rate limits, or behavior on poor queries, but for a query tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 three sentences, densely packed with useful details (retrieval method, source list, output). Every sentence contributes unique value, and the core purpose is front-loaded. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (large-scale retrieval across many source types), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, which sources it searches, how it works, and what it returns. With only one parameter and no output schema, it is largely complete, though it could mention how to formulate effective questions or handle cases with no results.

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?

The single parameter 'question' is already fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema. No examples or formatting guidance are provided, landing at the baseline of 3.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('query') and resource ('academic biblical research'), and provides extensive detail on scope (2M+ passages, lexicons, commentaries, historical texts). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying a two-stage retrieval method and source citations, making it distinct from generic 'ask_question'.

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 usage for academic biblical research by enumerating the searchable sources and output type. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over sibling tools like 'ask_question' or 'search_sources', nor does it provide exclusions. The context is clear but lacks direct comparative guidance.

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