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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral constraint — that results are limited to *approved* wish names, i.e. unapproved ones are excluded. It says nothing about result limits, matching behavior, or ordering, but with full annotation coverage a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but it is a sentence fragment so terse that it omits information an agent needs. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 and no explanation of what a shrine or an 'approved wish name' is, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to confidently distinguish this tool's domain from make_wish and the other siblings. Nothing about return shape, result count, or failure modes is provided.

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?

There is a single parameter 'q' with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning. 'Search approved wish names' implies q is a name query string, but no matching semantics (prefix, substring, exact) or handling of the 160-char limit are described, so it only partially compensates.

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 gives a verb ('Search') and a resource ('approved wish names'), which is more than a tautology. However, the tool is named find_shrine while the description talks about wish names, and the link between the two (what a 'shrine' is, what 'approved' means) is never stated. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like make_wish or my_status.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this search versus alternatives such as make_wish or my_status, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name and the one-word resource mention.

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