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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior; the description adds valuable context such as the returned fields (source IDs, citation labels, excerpts, dates, links) and the important limitation that priest names are not stored. This sets accurate expectations beyond the schema.

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?

Five sentences, each earning its place: scope, date usage, primary-position instruction, retry guidance, and return contents. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

The tool is a moderately complex search operation with 7 parameters, but the description covers content scope, date semantics, retry behavior, expected return fields, and a known limitation. With rich schema annotations and an output schema present, nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke it 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the relationship between rolling and absolute date windows (days_back vs date_from/date_to) and clarifies that queries can be retried with adjusted scope. This strengthens param understanding without duplicating schema text.

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 ('Search') and clearly names the resource (public sermons and related msza.ai content). It lists the covered content types and explicitly distinguishes this from narrower retrieval tools by saying it covers the entire archive plus auxiliary materials.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool first ('for every request about msza.ai content') and even advises retrying with broader or narrower topics when results are weak. It does not explicitly contrast against get_sermon or get_daily_page, but the primary-position instruction is clear.

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