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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/openWorld safety, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral context: content is read at call time from living-bread.org, words are the house's, Scripture is re-read from stored KJV text, nothing is generated, and it is honest when no page matches (a no-result contract). That last point is valuable negative-path disclosure.

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 source/verifiability sentences are front-loaded and earn their place, but the closing line ('Each sign points to who Jesus is: God come near, with power and mercy') restates the earlier 'what it shows about who He is' and adds rhetorical padding rather than information.

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 still covers provenance, no-generation guarantees, and the no-match case. It is nearly complete for a single-parameter lookup; only sibling disambiguation is missing.

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 'name' property already documents accepted miracle phrasings with examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes those example queries rather than adding format or matching rules, so the 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 resource (one of the miracles of Jesus) and enumerates what is returned: what happened, where it is written, what it shows about who He is. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as parable, teaching_of_jesus, or scripture_context, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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?

Sample user phrasings ("did Jesus really walk on water", "the feeding of the five thousand") imply when the tool is a good fit, which is genuine trigger guidance. But there is no explicit when-not and no alternative named against the many parallel sibling tools, leaving routing implicit.

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