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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses key behaviors: sections span the WHOLE recording, timestamps/references/access check are provided, and paid sermons return HTTP 402 until purchased. It also sets role boundaries by stating 'ORA Assistant does not teach and does not speak for the preacher or the church.' This significantly enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and constraints without contradicting annotations.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the purpose, then covers output contents, agent responsibility, verification, payment, and presentation style in a logical order. There is no redundant or filler text, and the structure supports a quick scan of the key points.

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 two-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: return value structure (sections with quotes/timestamps, references, question scaffold), error handling (HTTP 402), prerequisites (pay_with_x402, verify_scripture), and usage boundaries. No critical information is missing for correct invocation and result interpretation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'sections' controls how many sections are pulled and that 'sermon_id' comes from search_sermons or find_churches_preaching_on, which matches the schema. It does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 'Turn one sermon into material a small group can work through,' which clearly states a specific verb, resource, and outcome. It further distinguishes itself from siblings like get_sermon, sermon_prep_kit, and search_sermons by detailing the unique deliverables: timestamped sections, extracted Scripture references, and a discussion scaffold. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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 provides strong usage context: it mentions the prerequisite of paying for paid sermons with pay_with_x402, the need to verify references with verify_scripture, and the constraint that only opted-in sermons are available. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, but the conditions and workflow are clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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