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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds real domain context the annotations cannot: the corpus is a fixed set of 22 public-domain works sitting beside the Urantia Papers, and `id`/`unitLabel` are described in terms of how they are consumed downstream.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with no filler; the corpus scope comes first and the field semantics second. The dense set of parentheticals makes it slightly harder to scan than an ideal definition, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still pre-explains the two fields an agent will act on. It does not mention how to proceed to actual text (works.read) beyond the passing 'other works.* tools' note, which is the only real gap.

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 `lang` parameter — enum, default, and the catalogTranslation caveat — is already fully documented in the schema. The description spends its words on output fields rather than adding meaning to `lang`, so the 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?

The description names the exact resource — the Bible (WEB) plus 21 public-domain world-religion texts — and explains the two key fields (`id`, `unitLabel`). The verb 'list' lives only in the title; the body implies the catalog rather than stating 'returns the catalog of works'. Still, an agent can distinguish this from works.read and works.search without opening the 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?

It states that `id` is what the other works.* tools take, which effectively positions this as the discovery step before works.read/works.search. It gives no explicit when-not or comparison to works.search, so it falls short of a full 5.

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