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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: results are 'bounded profile fields' with 'canonical source URLs' capped at 'at most 20 indexed Scripture references', which tells the agent about result sizing beyond the 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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; the purpose and scope lead, and the return-content constraints follow immediately.

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?

With a full output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it appropriately summarizes what the profile contains and how it is bounded. Safety traits are covered by annotations and the sole parameter is fully documented, leaving nothing critical missing for a single-ID read tool.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema itself (exact sourceId, min/max length). The description only restates that the ID must be 'exact', adding no syntax or provenance detail beyond the schema's own note.

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 and resource ('Returns one public Catholic or biblical place profile') and scopes it by exact public place ID. It clearly distinguishes the 'place' resource from sibling resources like get_church, get_person and get_sermon, though it never names a sibling to route against.

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 phrase 'exact public place ID' implies the ID must already be known, and the schema notes it comes from search_msza_ai or get_sermon.references, but the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives for looking up a place.

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