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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's only added behavioral signal is 'best match first,' which usefully reveals that results are relevance-ordered rather than chronological. It does not mention pagination, result limits, or match semantics.

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 key fact ('best match first') is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. The second sentence is a rambling, grammatically broken run-on that mixes corpus enumeration with stray words ('plans, search, ... read a passage at a time') and does little to help invocation.

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 simple one-parameter search tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essential what-and-how. It tells the agent the corpus is Stoic readings (Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus, Seneca), which is the main missing piece structured fields cannot convey. Return format and pagination are absent but not critical here.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'q' with an example ('anger or death'). The description adds no syntax, matching mode, or query-format guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Search the curated readings') plus a ranking behavior ('best match first'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like list_readings or get_reading, which are plausible alternatives. The second sentence drifts into corpus description rather than clarifying the core purpose.

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 use this tool versus list_readings, get_reading, or read_book. 'Best match first' hints that results are relevance-ranked, but no condition or alternative is named. The agent is left to infer that this is the keyword-search entry point.

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