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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only added behavioral fact is that results are ids rather than full records, which is useful but thin; nothing is said about match fuzziness, result limits, or ordering.

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 tight sentences, no filler. The searchable scope is front-loaded and the follow-up tool pointer is placed last where it is most actionable.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly discloses that ids are returned and names the tool that consumes them, and the language fallback lives in the schema. Minor gaps remain around matching behavior and result volume, but nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 coverage is 50%: the language parameter is fully documented with an enumeration and fallback rule in the schema, while query is only constrained to minLength 2. The description compensates by demonstrating that query accepts descriptive phrases ('king Judah', 'prophetess'), not just bare names, adding real meaning 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 (Finds) and resource (people), and crucially defines both query modes: by name or by what is said about them, with concrete examples. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like search_bible, search_topics, and get_person.

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 closing clause 'Returns ids for get_person' implicitly routes the agent: use this to discover a person, then call get_person for detail. That is a clear usage relationship, though it never states exclusions or when a direct get_person lookup is preferable.

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