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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add the useful division of labor — the tool locates appearances, the agent supplies interpretation — but says nothing about coverage limits, what happens for an unrecognized theme, or result size.

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: what it does, when to use it, and the interpretive boundary. Purpose is front-loaded and every clause carries information; no 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?

With a single required parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema handling return values, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call it. The only gap is edge-case behavior — unknown or non-listed theme names — which is not addressed anywhere.

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 100% and the schema already lists the accepted theme vocabulary (shepherd, vine, potter, lamb, light, temple, etc.). The description's examples largely duplicate that list rather than adding format, normalization, or fallback guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 — 'Trace a biblical image or theme through Scripture' — and pins down the deliverable as 'key words and passages grouped by role.' Concrete examples (shepherd, lamb, vine, temple) make it unmistakable versus passage-level siblings like get_passage or lookup_word.

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?

'Use when the user asks about a symbol, metaphor, or recurring theme across the Bible' gives a clear triggering condition. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer connections or related_passages for adjacency rather than thematic tracing), so a 4 rather than a 5.

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