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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description indicates this performs semantic similarity across multiple corpus layers (a potentially expensive operation) but doesn't disclose rate limits, cost characteristics, or expectations around semantic search quality. It also doesn't describe return format shape. For a computation-heavy tool with zero annotations, more transparency would be valuable.

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 sentences with zero waste. The purpose is stated upfront, examples are inlined efficiently, and every sentence earns its place. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

There is an output schema present, which reduces the burden of explaining return values. The tool has only 2 params (1 required), so complexity is moderate. The description covers reference format via examples and scopes the corpus clearly. Minor gaps: top_k is undocumented and 'parallel-finding' isn't elaborated, but overall it's reasonably complete for a moderately simple tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description provides a helpful example of valid 'reference' format ('Philippians 2:7', 'JULIAN.27.2'), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema label. However, it says nothing about 'top_k' semantics beyond its numeric nature, and with 0% coverage the baseline 3 is warranted but not exceeded.

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 clearly states it finds passages semantically similar to a given ref, with a concrete verb ('Find') and resource (passages across scripture, Apocrypha, classics). It provides examples of valid references ('Philippians 2:7', 'JULIAN.27.2'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tool 'semantic_search', which could be confused with this one since both involve semantic matching.

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 implies usage ('Powers parallel-finding across corpus layers') and gives example input formats, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. Notably, 'semantic_search' is a sibling that likely overlaps in purpose, yet no guidance distinguishes when to use find_similar vs semantic_search. The examples of reference format are helpful context though.

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