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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context: verses come only from the stored King James text and "nothing is composed," plus it discloses the shape of the outcome ("ends with the door where a person says yes").

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 content and source, then the example questions. The semicolon-chained gospel summary is dense but each clause carries meaning; the quoted example queries are slightly padded but serve retrieval matching.

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 zero inputs, the description needn't explain returns, and it covers sourcing, content, and the invitation ending. It is essentially complete for calling the tool, with the only gap being no explicit boundary against sibling tools.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. There is no parameter behavior to clarify and the description correctly spends no words on inputs.

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 — the gospel presentation as told by The Living Bread — and enumerates its actual content (creation, sin, Jesus' death and resurrection, gift by faith). It is clearly distinguishable in substance from generic siblings, though it never names a sibling or explicitly routes against near-neighbors like ask_living_bread, belief, or journey_next_steps.

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?

It gives concrete trigger phrases ("what is the gospel", "how do I become a Christian", "is Jesus God"), which gives an agent a clear sense of when to invoke it. It lacks any when-not guidance or explicit mention of the overlapping siblings, 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.