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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description's one extra fact — that the corpus is the Indonesian translation across all verses — is genuinely useful behavior context, but result ordering/relevance, case or diacritic handling, and empty-result behavior are all undisclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope qualifier sits inline where it is useful. It is arguably trimmed past usefulness, but every word present earns its place.

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 three-parameter read-only search with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers the essential what but leaves paging semantics and expected return shape for the agent to infer. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool whose whole purpose is matching text.

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 33%: only `q` is documented (min 3 chars) while `limit` and `offset` carry defaults and a maximum but no textual meaning. The description adds nothing about how the query string is matched or that limit/offset control paging, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ("full-text search across all Bible verses") plus a scoping qualifier (Indonesian translation), which is enough to separate it from the other alkitab_* lookups that fetch by book/chapter/verse. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for search versus alkitab_verse or alkitab_passage, no mention that it matches keywords rather than references, and no note on paginating through large result sets. The use case is only weakly implied by the phrase "full-text search".

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