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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts beyond that — results are ranked by relevance, and the corpus is the World English Bible translation. It still says nothing about result count, pagination, or empty-result behavior.

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 text is short, but two of its three fragments restate the title ("Bible Swipe" and "Search the curated readings, best match first" verbatim), so a third of the content is duplicated metadata rather than new information. It is front-loaded but not fully earned.

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 single-parameter read-only search with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient — it states the corpus and ranking. It leaves gaps on what a "reading" is and how results are shaped, but the annotations shoulder most of the load.

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?

Only one parameter ("q") with 100% schema description coverage, including worked examples ("forgiveness or shepherd"). The description contributes no additional query-syntax guidance, so the baseline of 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 verb+resource pair ("Search the curated readings") is identifiable, and "best match first" signals ranked results. However, it never distinguishes this from bible_get_passage, bible_list_readings, or the many *_search_readings siblings, so an agent cannot tell which to pick. Purpose is legible but not differentiated.

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 when-to-use guidance at all — no statement of when to search versus call bible_get_passage or bible_list_readings. "Best match first" hints at ranking but says nothing about when this tool is the right choice.

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