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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses pre-computation with text-embedding-3-large, cosine similarity, and the output's similarity score and rank. It also transparently warns that results are semantic, not curated, and should be treated as starting points—all valuable behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by technical details and a caveat. Each sentence adds distinct value—purpose, method, output format, and usage caution—without any wasteful filler.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the description comprehensively covers what it does, how it works, what the output includes, and how to interpret results. An output schema exists, so return structure is further specified, and the description complements the schema effectively.

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 parameters are already documented. The tool description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond the schema, and the parameters (book_code, chapter, verse) are self-explanatory. Thus, 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns the top 10 Urantia paragraphs semantically nearest to a Bible verse's chunk, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself by noting it is the reverse of the UB-side `include_bible_parallels` tool, which differentiates it from siblings like `bible.verse` or `search.semantic`.

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 context by explaining this is the reverse direction of `include_bible_parallels`, implying when to use this tool (from Bible side to Urantia) versus the alternative. However, it does not explicitly list exclusions or name siblings in a direct 'use X instead' manner, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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