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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safe static-reference profile is covered. The description adds the useful facts that output includes refs and an examen question and that numbering variant is selectable, but says nothing about response format or size.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and contents, then the ES gloss. The Spanish translation is mildly redundant given the lang parameter, but nothing is bloated.

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 trivial two-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete: it names the selectable variants and the shape of the payload. The only soft spot is the unexplained term 'refs', which an agent must guess at.

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 only 50%: the lang parameter is documented in-schema but numbering has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining that numbering selects Catholic (default) or Protestant, adding real meaning beyond the bare enum values.

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 resource (the Ten Commandments) and what it returns: each commandment's application to AI agents, refs, and an examen question, plus the Catholic/Protestant numbering choice. This is clear enough to distinguish it from bible_search or catechism, though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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 it should call this for moral-reference material rather than scripture lookup, and the mention of an 'examen question' hints at overlap with examen_of_conscience, but the description never says when to prefer one over the other.

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