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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context not in the annotations: data provenance ("posted by real churches and believers; nothing invented") and that times are UTC, which materially affects how results are presented.

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 purpose and gathering-type list are front-loaded, but the four quoted sample questions repeat the same idea already conveyed by the trigger sentence, padding the description without adding routing value.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, data trust, and timezone. It omits why all seven parameters are optional (no-location browsing / paging behavior), which is a minor gap for a zero-required-param search 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 86%, so the schema already documents lat, lng, city, days, limit, cursor, and online. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., lat/lng vs city preference, or that cursor pairs with next_cursor), so baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb (find) and resource (real, upcoming Christian gatherings) and enumerates concrete gathering types, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as gatherings_tonight, find_churches_near, or events_this_week, which an agent must disambiguate.

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?

Usage is grounded in realistic user phrasings ("is there a Bible study near me this week") and an explicit trigger sentence ("Use when someone asks what is happening near them..."). It stops short of naming an alternative tool or a when-not condition, so routing against siblings is left to inference.

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