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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them with genuinely useful behavior: stop words are ignored, stemming matches longer forms ('fear' → 'fears', 'feared'), and results come back ranked by match closeness. Return format/pagination is the only notable omission.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and what it searches, with matching behavior and scoping constraints following. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does: verses ranked by match closeness. Combined with 100% schema coverage for all five parameters, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only pagination/result-count behavior is left unstated.

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 baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning on top: it explains the matching semantics of the query parameter (stop-word filtering, stemming) and confirms that results can be scoped to one book or one testament. It does not add anything for limit or translation beyond the schema's own enums and defaults.

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 ('Finds Bible verses containing the given words') plus the two translations searched and the relevance ranking. An agent can immediately separate this keyword-search tool from reference-based siblings like get_passage or get_devotional without opening a schema.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the 'containing the given words' framing tells the agent this is for keyword lookup, not chapter/verse retrieval. However, no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. 'use get_passage when you already know the reference').

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