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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: results come back as ids that a separate fetch call expands into full reads, which tells the agent this is a two-step retrieval flow. 'Provided for connector clients' hints at intended audience but is vague.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the search scope followed by the return mechanism. Little waste, though the trailing 'Provided for connector clients' is vague and does not earn much space.

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 tool has only one required parameter. However, for a broad search tool in a suite crowded with overlapping search siblings, the absence of any routing guidance leaves a meaningful gap for correct tool selection.

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 0% for the single query parameter; the schema only constrains it to a 1-300 character string. The description partially compensates by implying accepted query kinds (a need, a Bible reference, an entity name), which is useful semantics, but says nothing about matching behavior, ranking, or how references should be formatted.

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?

Names a specific verb (Search) and enumerates the resource space it spans: Scripture, Bible references, churches, gatherings, communities and sourced entities. That is a clear purpose, but it offers no differentiation from the many focused siblings (scripture_search, find_churches_near, communities_to_join), so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite roughly 45 siblings, several of which (scripture_search, find_gatherings_near, find_churches_near) overlap directly with this tool's stated scope. The agent is left to guess whether to use the broad search or a narrower sibling.

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