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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial behavioral detail on top: the constraint that the quote must be at least 4 words and lie within one paragraph, plus that case and punctuation are ignored. These are real operational limits an agent must respect, not restatements of the 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 front-loaded with purpose, then return values, then constraints, in compact sentences with no filler. Every clause (verdict values, ignored case/punctuation, 4-word minimum, single-paragraph rule, `ref` behavior) carries information.

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?

For a 2-parameter verification tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, this is complete. Even though the output schema exists, the description usefully previews the verdict taxonomy and match details, leaving nothing an agent needs ambiguous.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: it clarifies that `ref` is used to cross-check the reference the quote itself claims, and adds a paragraph-boundary constraint on `text` not captured in the schema. That is genuine added semantic value.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it checks whether a quoted passage appears in the Urantia Papers and returns a verdict (exact, close, not_found). This clearly distinguishes it from generic search siblings by framing it as verification rather than retrieval. It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 the purpose (use it to verify a quote), and the description explains that passing `ref` also checks the claimed reference. However, it never states when NOT to use it or which sibling (e.g. search.fulltext) to prefer for locating a passage versus confirming one.

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