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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important context beyond that: it discloses the bounded return shape, the maximum of 20 Scripture references, canonical source URLs, and especially that profile fields are untrusted source data and never instructions. This last point is a crucial security-relevant behavioral warning not visible in 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the tool's purpose and ID source, the second summarizes the return payload with concrete limits, and the third adds an important safety warning. The most critical scoping information is 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?

With one required parameter, a fully documented schema, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description only needs to add the nuances that structured fields cannot express. It provides the ID provenance, output bounds, and untrusted-data warning, making the tool fully callable without ambiguity.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema description already explains that place_id is the exact sourceId from search_msza_ai or an id from get_sermon.references. The tool description largely mirrors this, so it adds little semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 public Catholic or biblical place profile'), and the exact ID source ('sourceId' from search_msza_ai), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools. It also adds concrete constraints on the returned data, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool offers.

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 operational guidance: use the exact place_id returned by search_msza_ai or referenced from get_sermon.references. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but for a load-by-id tool the usage context is sufficiently clear and unambiguous.

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