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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it specifies the return contents (origin tradition, rarity tier, full lore in English + Thai) and notes the tool is encyclopedic. This goes beyond the structured fields and gives the agent a clear picture of what the tool does.

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 description is a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the purpose and scope, then gives examples, return contents, and usage triggers. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, though it could be slightly more concise. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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 read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (origin, rarity, lore in both languages) and covers the main calling pattern. It also handles the optional language parameter implicitly through the schema. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% for both parameters. The description repeats some details already in the schema (case-insensitive, partial matches, lang defaults) without adding any new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not compensate with additional parameter context.

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 states a specific action (look up) and a clear resource (encyclopedic profile of 1,044 deities across 9 mythologies). It provides concrete examples of deities and explicitly differentiates the tool from all siblings, none of which involve deity lookup. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 explicitly lists the types of user queries that should trigger this tool (e.g., 'who is X?', 'tell me about the god/goddess X', myth or symbolism, pantheon). It also gives concrete example deity names, making the trigger conditions crystal clear. While it doesn't state when not to use it, there are no relevant sibling tools to disambiguate, so this is fully adequate.

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