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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by naming the returned fields (author, work, section, citation) and by explaining the collection_disabled outcome as a user-disabled collection rather than a bad id, which prevents misdiagnosis of the failure.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the id provenance and return shape, then the one error condition. No redundant or filler wording.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, this is nearly complete: id source, return contents, and the collection_disabled state are all addressed. Only minor edges, such as behavior for an unknown or stale id, are left unstated.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline would be 3. The description goes slightly beyond it by tying the id to its producing tools, reinforcing that this is an opaque passage id rather than a citation string.

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 states a specific verb and resource (read one passage of a church father or other Christian writing in full) and scopes it to a single id, which cleanly separates it from scripture-reading siblings like get_passage and from search_writings, which only produces the ids.

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?

It tells the agent where the required passage_id comes from (search_writings or discussions_of), which is the key routing decision for this tool. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or a direct contrast with get_passage, so it is clear context rather than full alternative routing.

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