Search concepts

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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: all terms match with AND logic, adding words narrows results, and this searches metadata rather than full text. It also warns about collection-size skew affecting default queries.

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?

Each sentence earns its place: scope, search behavior, practical disambiguation advice, and routing to alternative tools. It is front-loaded with the most important information and stays focused without unnecessary filler.

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 read-only search tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, disambiguation, and alternatives. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly without inspecting sibling tool schemas.

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 100% and parameter descriptions already document each field. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how the query parameter behaves (AND matching), why type is important, and what the type values represent. It does not deeply elaborate on tag or offset semantics, but those are already clear from the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and scope: search every document in the knowledge base by name, description, tag, path and type, and names the many collections covered. This immediately distinguishes it from general document listing and from searching the text of Scripture.

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?

The description states exactly when to use this tool versus alternatives: search concepts metadata with this tool, search Scripture text with search_scripture, and fetch a known reference with get_passage. It also gives practical guidance on using the type parameter to avoid ambiguous results.

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