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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive. The description adds genuine beyond-annotation context: content is read at call time from the house's own page, Scripture is re-read from the stored King James text, nothing is generated, and it is 'honest when no page matches'. That sourcing and no-generation disclosure is exactly the extra value expected.

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 topic scope are front-loaded, but the text repeats itself — 'His own words from the stored Gospels', 'read from the stored text', and 'These are the words of Jesus Christ, God and Lord, read from the stored text' say substantially the same thing three times. It is longer than the information content requires.

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 and full annotation coverage, the description needn't explain return values, and it does supply sourcing, non-generation, and no-match behavior. For a single-parameter lookup tool this is close to complete, with only sibling differentiation 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 description coverage is 100% and there is a single parameter already documented with the same topic examples the description lists. The description adds no syntax, casing, or matching behavior beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'What Jesus Himself said about love, forgiveness, prayer...' — sourced from the house's Teachings of Jesus pages. It clearly frames the tool as topic-scoped sayings of Jesus. However, it never names its nearest siblings (what_the_bible_says_about, scripture_search, verses_for), so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 is implied through sample user questions ('what did Jesus say about worry') and the topic list, which signals when the tool fits. There is no explicit when-not or alternative routing, e.g. no statement that broader Bible topics belong to what_the_bible_says_about. Implied-only guidance lands at 3.

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