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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them — content is read at call time from the house's own page, Scripture is re-read from stored King James text, and nothing is generated. It also promises honesty when no page matches, which sets expectations for misses.

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 first sentence and the example queries are well front-loaded, but the trailing devotional sentence ('Jesus told these so that the heart of God would be seen; He is the Father who runs to meet us') adds no selection or invocation value and bloats the definition.

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 single-parameter lookup with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what matters: content source, the no-generation guarantee, and fallback behavior on no match. Return-value detail is correctly left to the output schema.

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 100% for the single 'name' parameter, and the description's example values ('prodigal son', 'good samaritan') essentially duplicate what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 resource (one of the parables of Jesus) and enumerates what it returns: the story in short, its Gospel location, its meaning, and a link to the full text. This is clearly distinct from generic siblings like scripture_passage or teaching_of_jesus, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 context is conveyed through concrete example user phrasings ('tell me the parable of the prodigal son', 'what does the good samaritan mean'), which tells an agent exactly what kind of request belongs here. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming a sibling to prefer instead.

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