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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds a useful behavioral trait — the hard cap of three results and the literal (non-semantic) matching — but says nothing about the two corpora, match failure behavior, or result shape beyond what the output schema carries.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the result limit appears before the qualifier. It is tight, though the terse semicolon clause reads more as shorthand than as structured guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with two required parameters, one of them an undocumented enum, the definition leaves an agent guessing which corpus to select — a meaningful gap for a two-parameter tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only partially hints at 'query' being short (matching the 40-char cap) and completely ignores source_id, whose enum values 'bsb' and 'web' are opaque abbreviations an agent cannot resolve from the description.

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 concrete verb and resource: return up to three literal corpus matches for a short keyword or phrase. The 'not a doctrinal ranking' clause implicitly separates it from interpretive siblings such as faith_topic_guide_preview, though no sibling is named outright.

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?

Input expectations are implied ('short keyword or phrase'), but there is no statement of when to choose this over faith_scripture_lookup or faith_passage_context_preview. Usage must be inferred from the description alone.

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