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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: the authority disclaimer (not the Holy See, not a diocese) and the licensing of texts, which materially affect how an agent should cite or represent the source.

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?

Front-loaded and short: the substance comes first and the disclaimer/licensing items are listed compactly. The ES line largely restates the EN line, which costs a little space but is defensible for a bilingual tool.

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 zero-required-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description tells an agent what topics the response covers. It could go further on return shape or length, but nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100% and the single lang enum is fully documented with default and allowed values, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description's Spanish mirror line signals multilingual output but adds nothing about language behavior beyond what the enum already states.

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 names the resource concretely — this church for AI agents — and enumerates the content payload: what it is, how to connect, a jurisdictional disclaimer that it is NOT the Holy See nor a diocese, and text licenses. That is specific enough to separate it from content siblings like bible_passage or catechism, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with 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: an agent can infer this is the orientation/disclaimer lookup to consult before or instead of doctrinal content tools. There is no explicit 'use this when' clause, no exclusions, and no pointer to a sibling for canonical or legal questions.

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