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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds value by mentioning the inverted lemma index (implementation detail) and 'Paginated' (pagination behavior), which are not in annotations. It does not contradict 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 a single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive) and the schema defining required and optional params with constraints, the description provides sufficient core context. No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The only notable gap is usage guidance versus alternatives, but overall it is adequate for a filtered-list 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. It provides semantic meaning for the 'lemma' parameter by saying 'normalized lemma', and 'Paginated' hints at the page/limit parameters' role. However, it does not explicitly describe page or limit beyond what the schema already provides, so compensation is partial.

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 uses a specific verb 'Find' with a clear resource 'verses' and a specific criterion 'normalized lemma via the inverted lemma index.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'find_verses_by_root' by explicitly saying 'lemma' rather than 'root', and mentions normalization, which adds precision.

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 when you want verses by a normalized lemma, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'find_verses_by_root' or 'search'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so context is present but only implicit.

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