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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds the 'best match first' ranking behavior, which is genuine non-obvious context, but says nothing about result counts, pagination, or coverage limits.

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 compact clauses with no filler, and the search intent and ranking are front-loaded. The second clause's semicolon-separated catalog of content types is dense but still short.

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 read-only annotation profile and no output schema, this is close to adequate, but the description never characterizes the results (verse hits vs. book passages, how many, what fields) or the relationship to get_reading/read_book, leaving a real gap for an agent deciding coverage.

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% and the schema documents the single 'q' parameter with examples, so the description carries little extra burden. The description adds no query syntax guidance (multi-word handling, phrase matching, scoping) beyond what the schema states, so 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') and adds scope detail (Bhagavad Gita verses/plans, whole books from the Library). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_readings and get_reading, though the second clause is compressed and reads like a content catalog rather than a statement of what search does.

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 'search' versus the retrieval siblings (get_reading, get_verse, read_book), but the description never says when to choose search over those lookup tools or what a match on a book passage returns. The agent must infer the when-to-use boundary from sibling names alone.

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