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

The description significantly expands on the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing exactly what is read (public-domain Scripture, computed calendar, opted-in sermons), that it grants no special access, has no role check because there is nothing private, and warns that content must be checked before use. This is rich, non-contradictory transparency beyond the structural annotation.

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 description is structured into three focused paragraphs: core purpose, read-only behavior/access, and usage boundary. The key info is front-loaded in the first sentence. It is somewhat verbose, but each sentence serves a distinct purpose (explaining what is included, why no auth is needed, and how results should be used), so the length is justified for the tool's scope.

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 tool with no output schema, the description enumerates exactly what is returned (liturgical day, KJV passages, Strong's entries, other churches' sermons) and explains access and safety. The only notable gap is the absence of an explicit description of the output structure or formatting, but the itemized list gives the agent a strong mental model of what to expect.

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%, with each parameter already described (date format, focus natural language, Strong's format, reference format). The description only mentions the same concepts in prose ('KJV passages', 'Strong's lexicon entries') without adding new meaning or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 opens with a specific verb ('assemble') and names the resource ('research kit') with its exact components: liturgical day, KJV passages, Strong's entries, and other churches' sermons. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by saying 'One call instead of five' and clarifies what it is NOT (draft, outline, advice), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when assembling multiple research pieces for preaching/teaching, and emphasizes efficiency ('one call instead of five'). It also provides an exclusion by stating it is NOT a draft/outline/advice. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative dedicated tools (e.g., get_verse, lookup_strongs) or state 'if you need only one component, use that tool,' leaving the differentiation partially implicit.

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