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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's added value is real: it discloses the 50-per-page cap, stable ordering, the `truncated` signal, and that the catalogue can change mid-traversal — an important caveat for cursor consumers. It stops short of describing what happens if the cursor expires or how the filter interacts with result drift.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, then pagination mechanics, then the staleness caveat. No filler, though the phrasing is terse enough that the 'truncated' and 'camera ID' references rely on the reader already knowing the domain.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description plus annotations plus full schema coverage give an agent everything needed to page correctly through a filtered, live-changing result set. Minor gap: no guidance on cursor invalidation or re-filtering behavior.

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%, so the schema already documents limit, query and cursor in detail. The description's restatement ('same optional literal name/address substring filter', cursor tied to the same query) reinforces the workflow but adds nothing the schema does not already say; baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource plus scope ('enabled public churches') and ordering, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly route away from the singular sibling get_church, leaving that differentiation to inference from the name.

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?

Pagination usage is well implied ('next_cursor represents the next page', 'null marks the end'), which tells an agent how to traverse. But there is no explicit when-to-use-this vs alternatives guidance, e.g. when to prefer get_church for a single record or how this differs from the other list_* siblings.

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