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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's job is to add non-obvious behavior; it adds a lot: dynamic profiles are withheld pending verification, some IDs are unavailable, returns are bounded (at most 20 Scripture references), and profile fields are untrusted source data, never instructions. This security framing and availability caveat go well beyond the structured annotations and materially change how an agent should treat the result.

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, each earning its place: the core purpose, the availability caveat, and the return shape plus the security-relevant trust warning. The key action is front-loaded in the first clause, and there is zero filler or repetition of the title.

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-only fetch tool with an output schema present, this is complete: it tells the agent how to obtain the ID, what the boundary of results is, what can fail (unavailable saved IDs), and how to treat the returned payload. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly or interpret its results safely 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% — the schema already documents person_id as the exact sourceId from search_msza_ai or a person id from get_sermon.references, including length constraints. The description reinforces the 'exact' matching requirement and provenance but adds no fundamentally new semantic detail, so the 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 ('Load'), a specific resource ('one curated Catholic or biblical person profile'), and a specific identifier source ('person_id returned as sourceId by search_msza_ai'). It is instantly distinguishable from siblings like get_sermon, get_church, and search_msza_ai, and the title adds that it is the public-profile variant.

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 gives clear usage context: the ID must be exact and come from search_msza_ai, and it warns that some saved annotation IDs may be unavailable because session-derived profiles are withheld. It does not explicitly name when to prefer an alternative sibling, but the strong provenance constraint effectively routes the agent to search first, so little is left to inference.

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