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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts not in the annotations: results are limited to public (non-private) services, and the query must be non-personal. It says nothing about result volume beyond the schema's limit or about latency/rate behavior.

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 filler; the search verb and scope come first. It is arguably too sparse rather than padded, which is a completeness issue, not a conciseness one.

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 an output schema present, return-value explanation is not required, and the tool is a simple two-parameter search. Still, it omits what 'capability query' concretely means, what the limit controls, and how results relate to the sibling detail/evidence tools, leaving gaps for an agent choosing among ten faith_* tools.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it partially meets that burden by defining the query as short, non-personal, and capability-oriented. The limit parameter is left entirely unexplained — no indication it caps result count or interacts with pagination.

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 (Search) and resource (public Christian services), which reads clearly as a discovery tool. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like faith_services_list or faith_service_detail, so the agent must infer the differentiation from names alone.

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 phrase 'short, non-personal capability query' implies what kind of query to send and hints at appropriate use, which is useful guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus the sibling list/detail/preview tools, and no stated exclusions.

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