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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return shape: prayer articles each with an excerpt, summary points, and a link to the full set. It omits whether results can be empty for unusual needs, which is a minor gap given the low-risk read profile.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first establishes purpose and scope, the second establishes the return format. The occasion list is front-loaded and the return contract follows it without filler or restated title text.

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?

For a two-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what it searches, examples of valid needs, and the shape of each returned article. Annotations cover the safety and idempotency traits, so nothing material is left to inference.

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 both `need` and `limit` are already documented with constraints and an example. The description reinforces what `need` accepts by listing occasion types, but adds no syntax, format, or behavior for `limit` beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter 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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Find written prayers") and immediately scopes it with a concrete list of needs and occasions, so an agent can distinguish it from find_bible_verses or search_articles without opening a schema. It also names the source (Christian Pure prayer articles), which further narrows the resource.

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 enumerated occasions (illness, grief, job interview, court case, marriage, child, sleep, protection, thanksgiving) give a clear picture of when this tool applies. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as find_bible_verses for scripture or search_articles for general content, so the routing signal is contextual rather than stated.

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