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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Each page consumes the shared listing allowance' (rate/quota semantics) and 'This is a live catalog, not a snapshot; additions before the cursor require restarting traversal' (consistency semantics). This is exactly the kind of extra disclosure that helps an agent.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core listing behavior, then pagination, filter, and a usage hint, and ending with a consistency caveat. No fluff; every sentence earns its place. Slightly dense but efficient.

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?

Given an output schema exists and only 3 optional parameters, the description covers the essentials: listing scope, pagination mechanics, filtering, usage hint, and a live-catalog caveat. It lacks explicit error-handling or response-shape notes, but the output schema covers those. Complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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%, so each parameter already has a description. The description adds meaning by explaining the cursor contract ('Pass next_cursor as cursor with the same query to continue; null means the end'), the binding of query across pages, and the filter semantics ('Optional literal name/address substring filter'). This goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List enabled public churches in stable camera ID order, up to 50 per page.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling get_church (single record) and other listing tools. The filter and pagination details further refine the purpose.

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 provides clear context: it's a listing tool with pagination, and it explicitly notes 'Use camera_id for church profiles or sermon filters,' which guides downstream use. It does not name an explicit alternative tool, but the 'live catalog' caveat implies when not to rely on it for snapshots. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use exclusions, but the usage intent is clear.

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