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

The description discloses important behavioral details beyond a simple retrieval: the data structure (17 movements), the filtering behavior via parameters, and the default 'index' when no id is given. It also emphasizes that the data is verified. While annotations are absent, the description carries the burden well and does not contradict any annotations.

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 moderately sized and contains multiple sentences that each add value: defining the resource, explaining the movement vocabulary, and providing parameter usage. It is front-loaded with the core concept, though the opening sentence is somewhat dense and stylistically unconventional.

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?

Given no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool returns (storyboards, index), how to filter, and important framing guidance. There is slight ambiguity about the behavior when both 'id' and 'movement' are supplied, but overall it is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The schema has no descriptions for the 'id' and 'movement' parameters (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining their semantics with concrete examples ('pass movement="testing"') and default behaviors ('else the index'). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a reference for Bible storyboards (common narratives), listing examples and explaining how to retrieve them. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on 'storyboards' and 'movements,' though it lacks a direct verb like 'get' or 'list.'

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 provides clear usage context: pass 'movement' to walk across storyboards, pass 'id' for one storyboard, or get an index. It also includes a cautionary note about using narratives as a reference, not an identity assignment. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusionary conditions.

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