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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the bounded return shape (at most 20 Scripture references, canonical URLs) and, importantly, warns that profile fields are untrusted source data and never instructions—valuable behavioral context beyond annotations.

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: function and parameter source, return composition, and a security caveat. The most important operational detail (where place_id comes from) is front-loaded, with zero filler.

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 tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: how to obtain the ID, what results to expect (including the 20-reference cap), and how to treat the returned data. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description of place_id as the exact sourceId from search_msza_ai. The tool description repeats this without adding new parameter-level meaning, 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 uses a specific verb ('Load') and resource ('one public Catholic or biblical place profile'), and clearly identifies the required identifier ('exact place_id returned as sourceId by search_msza_ai'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_person or get_sermon by narrowing the resource type to places.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: after search_msza_ai has returned a place sourceId, and only with that exact ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions for other entity types, but the strong coupling to search_msza_ai provides clear usage context.

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