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

With annotations already declaring readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, the description adds valuable context: cosine similarity ranking, pre-computed UB parallels with a direction, the ability to suppress them via urantia_parallel_limit, and the OPENAI_API_KEY dependency. This goes well beyond the annotation safety profile and discloses practical operational details.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the key behavioral details and filters. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of the title.

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 a rich schema, annotations, and an existing output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's core function, result composition, filtering options, dependency requirement, and a way to suppress the UB attachment. It is complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the 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 coverage is 100%, and every parameter already includes a description. The tool description adds some context around filter meanings and the urantia_parallel_limit effect, but it mostly repeats what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb+resource+approach: 'Free-form natural-language search across all Bible chunks, ranked by cosine similarity.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search.fulltext and search.semantic by emphasizing the Bible scope and the UB parallel attachment with direction=bible_to_ub.

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 clearly conveys the use case: natural-language semantic search over Bible content with optional canon/book filters and UB parallel enrichment. It implies when to use (semantic instead of keyword) and mentions the API key prerequisite, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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