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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond annotations: results are cosine-ranked, each carries top-N pre-computed Urantia parallels, and `urantia_parallel_limit=0` suppresses them. It omits pagination/default behavior, but the schema carries that.

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?

Front-loads the core capability, then the enrichment feature, then filters and the disable switch. Five tight sentences, though the Urantia-parallel point is stated twice ('One query surfaces both...' plus the limit note), which is mildly redundant.

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 annotations covering safety and an output schema covering the result shape, the description supplies the remaining essentials: ranking method, enrichment behavior, and filter/disable switches. Pagination and default limits are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given its coverage.

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 every parameter is already documented. The description restates the filter values and the '0 disables' behavior the schema already states, adding no new parameter semantics; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('free-form natural-language search across all Bible chunks') plus the ranking mechanism (cosine similarity) and the merged Urantia-paragraph enrichment. The Bible-only scope plus the dual-surface behavior distinguishes it from the general `search.semantic` sibling without needing to name it.

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 search,' and the description usefully notes the dual Bible+Urantia surface. However, it never states when to prefer this over keyword search (`search.fulltext`) or over the structured `bible.verse`/`bible.chapter` tools, nor any exclusions.

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