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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context that annotations don't carry: the return shape ('all nine movements, or one if specified') — important since there is no output schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose; the enumeration of nine movement names is somewhat long but is functional content, not filler. No redundant boilerplate.

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 zero-required-parameter, read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the domain, intended use cases, and the return shape. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 enum is fully self-documenting, so the baseline is 3. The description only confirms the same all-vs-one behavior already stated in the parameter's own description, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('Get') and resource ('the nine movements of The Doxa Way'), then enumerates all nine movements by name and identifies the framework as a biblical Christian discipleship model. An agent can immediately tell this is a reference/content lookup tool rather than an action tool.

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?

Explicitly lists use cases ('faith journey mapping, Bible-grounded spiritual growth, or Christian encouragement context'), which gives clear context for selection. However, it never names or contrasts the siblings (doxa_encourage, doxa_scripture), so an agent facing 'encouragement' intent has no routing guidance.

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