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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world). The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: results are bounded to at most 20 per page with next_cursor pagination, matches are in canonical order, and whole-word matching is the default unless the query is quoted.

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?

Front-loaded with the core operation and dataset size, then the matching rules, then optional filters, then pagination. The three example questions are slightly padded but earn their place by mapping natural user phrasing onto the query parameter.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it still covers the things an agent needs: matching semantics, KJV wording caveat, scope filters, and the 20-per-page/next_cursor bound. Nothing material is left for the agent to guess.

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 high (83%), so the baseline is 3; the description still adds value by spelling out the conjunction semantics (ALL words must appear), the phrase-quoting syntax, the whole-word default, and the book/Testament narrowing options. It does not enumerate the limit/cursor mechanics beyond the paging sentence.

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 verb (search) and resource (verses of the stored KJV, quantified as 31102 verses / 66 books) plus the match semantics (ALL given words, canonical order, paged). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like scripture_passage or scripture_context, which retrieve a known passage rather than search by words.

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?

Gives concrete usage context via example user phrasings and a critical precondition (it searches KJV wording, so modern terms may not appear – search "charity" as well as "love"). It never explicitly names an alternative sibling or a when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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