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

Annotations already declare a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description is free to spend its words on matching semantics. It does disclose non-obvious behavior: AND-across-all-words matching, substring/stem matching, and exact-phrase quoting. It does not address result ordering or paging behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: match semantics first, phrase syntax second, edition/language selection last. No filler or restatement of the name.

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?

Covers the matching model and the highest-risk parameter choice for a 7-parameter search tool; safety is covered by annotations and no output schema is declared. Pagination (limit/offset) and the fact that results are presumably paged are not mentioned, which is the one remaining gap.

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 57%, and the description compensates by explaining the two trickiest parameters: query semantics (substring stems, quoted phrases, all-words-required) and edition-to-language mapping. book, limit, offset, testament, and language are left to the schema, which documents most of them adequately.

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 and resource ("Finds verses containing ALL the given words") plus the scoping constraint "in one edition". This clearly distinguishes it from search_original_word, search_topics, and search_people, which target other match dimensions.

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?

Provides concrete prescriptive guidance on choosing the edition to match the word language (osen for English, osnb/osnn for Norwegian, sblgnt/tanach for Greek/Hebrew), which prevents the main misuse. It does not, however, explicitly say when to use a sibling instead, e.g. search_original_word for lemma-based lookup.

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