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

Annotations carry read-only/idempotent/non-destructive hints, but the description adds materially: data may be AI-enriched, schedules outdated, all fields untrusted, and no profile generation/refresh. These warnings are not present in annotations and help agents avoid acting on stale data.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, return fields, warnings. No fluff, front-loaded with the action, each sentence adds value.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, source, data trust, freshness, and non-refresh behavior. Warnings about untrusted data are especially valuable.

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 only parameter has full schema description coverage, and the description reinforces that camera_id is the exact value from list_churches. No additional format/default constraints are introduced, so baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb 'Read', names the resource 'saved public church profile', and ties the identifier to list_churches. It also enumerates returned fields, distinguishing it from other get_* 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?

It provides clear context that camera_id comes from list_churches and states the tool only reads, does not refresh or generate profiles. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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