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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive) by disclosing result cardinality (at most five), the freshness labeling scheme with the explicit warning that results are 'never available now from an old time', the single link behavior, the empty-result fallback, and that scripture is read from stored text with an evidence label.

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?

Purpose and output shape are front-loaded, and the journey list plus example queries are information-dense rather than padded. The example-query sentence is somewhat long and partly restates the journey list, keeping it short of a 5.

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, yet the description still supplies the essentials an agent needs to interpret and trust results: the cap, freshness semantics, the evidence label on scripture, and the empty-result behavior. Nothing material is left unspecified for a read-only aggregate journey 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by mapping each journey enum value to the parameter it consumes and marking place as optional for two of them ('someone_to_pray_with_tonight (place optional)', 'serve_this_weekend (place or country)'). That is genuinely useful routing information not present in the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Run one of six journeys end to end and get at most five real, well-matched next steps') and enumerates the six journeys by name. This clearly separates it from siblings like find_churches_near or where_can_i_serve_publicly, which cover only one journey each.

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 maps each journey to the user need it serves and gives concrete example phrasings ('find me a church community in Leeds', 'a prayer group in Spanish'), which routes the agent effectively. It does not, however, explicitly say when to prefer a narrower sibling tool over this aggregate one.

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