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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint; the description adds real behavior: conjunctive matching ('all words must appear'), the book scoping option, and the result shape ('up to limit verses with references') in the absence of an output schema. It stops short of describing matching mechanics (substring vs. word-boundary, Thai tokenization, ordering), which matters for unsegmented Thai text.

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, no filler, with the core search semantics and the AND-constraint front-loaded before the optional scoping and return-shape details.

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 return-value burden and does so adequately (count-capped verse list with references). For a simple three-parameter search it is essentially complete, with only result ordering/scoring 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 coverage is only 67% — the 'limit' property has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining that results are capped at 'limit' and that 'book' optionally restricts the search to one book, effectively covering the undocumented parameter.

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 ('Find verses in the Eremos Translation whose Thai text contains the given words') and pins down the matching semantics with '(all words must appear)'. This clearly separates it from get_passage (retrieve a known reference) and list_books without opening either 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?

The description implies the use case (locate verses by Thai text, optionally scoped to one book) but never states when to prefer this over get_passage for a known reference, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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