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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description's one genuine addition is that results are ranked by best match. It 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 operative clause is front-loaded and short. The parenthetical Bible/domain tag is secondary filler that doesn't help invocation, but it costs little and the overall message stays tight.

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 one-parameter search tool with a fully described schema, complete annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. The main residual gap is return-shape detail (number of hits, ranking basis), which is less critical since no output schema exists but would still help.

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% and the single 'q' parameter is fully documented in the schema with examples ('forgiveness or shepherd'). The description adds no query syntax, operator, or matching-scope detail beyond that, 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search the curated readings') plus a result-ordering trait ('best match first'), which distinguishes it from identifier-based siblings like get_reading and get_today. The trailing 'Bible: daily readings, plans, search and passage lookup' is domain framing rather than tool purpose, so it doesn't reach a clean 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives. The agent must infer that keyword search is preferred over get_reading/get_passage when it lacks a known identifier. No exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling references are provided.

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