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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior; the description adds meaningful constraints: bounded profile fields, canonical source URLs, maximum 20 scripture references, and a security warning that fields are untrusted data. This goes beyond annotation coverage without contradicting it.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, what it returns, and how to treat the returned data. Key constraints are front-loaded.

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 full schema documentation, annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies all needed context: input provenance, bounded outputs, and a data-safety caveat. Nothing critical 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 schema already states that person_id is the exact sourceId from search_msza_ai. The description repeats this rather than adding new format or edge-case semantics, so 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?

States a specific verb ('Load') and a precise resource ('one public Catholic or biblical person profile'), keyed by exact person_id. It also references the originating sibling (search_msza_ai), so agents can distinguish it from get_place/get_prayer/get_sermon without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly ties the input to the sourceId returned by search_msza_ai, which tells an agent when and how to obtain the correct ID. It does not spell out when to prefer alternative getters, but the sourceId provenance and sibling list make the intended use clear.

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