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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: results are cosine-ranked and each one carries a set of attached cross-corpus Urantia paragraphs, so the agent understands the return shape is enriched, not just Bible hits.

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 operation and its enrichment are front-loaded, and the filter notes come last. It is efficient overall, but the sentence about top-N Urantia paragraphs and the following 'One query surfaces both Bible matches and the relevant Urantia content' partially repeat the same idea and could be merged.

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, the description needn't explain return values, yet it usefully clarifies that results are enriched with Urantia paragraphs. Filters and the disable flag are covered. The main gap is the absence of any routing hint relative to the other semantic/fulltext siblings, but nothing needed 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%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including the canon enum values and the meaning of urantia_parallel_limit=0. The description restates canon, book_code, and the 0-disables behavior without adding syntax, defaults, or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ('free-form natural-language search across all Bible chunks') plus the ranking method ('ranked by cosine similarity') and the distinctive enrichment ('top-N pre-computed Urantia paragraphs'). The Bible/works domain split makes it separable from siblings like works.search.semantic and search.semantic without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by 'free-form natural-language' versus the sibling search.fulltext, but the description never explicitly says when to prefer this over search.semantic, works.search.semantic, or search.fulltext, nor does it name any exclusion conditions. The only explicit usage note ('set urantia_parallel_limit to 0 to leave out the Urantia paragraphs') is parameter-level, not tool-selection guidance.

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