search_biblical_resources

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by naming the BM25 scoring algorithm and the resource types searched, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any side effects, rate limits, or permission requirements. For a simple search tool this is adequate but not thorough.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of 12 words. It contains no repetition, filler, or unnecessary details. Every word contributes to conveying the purpose and key behavioral attribute (BM25), making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not mention return format, pagination, parameter usage, or relationship to sibling fetch tools. The brief description covers only the core purpose, leaving the agent without adequate context to invoke the tool correctly in varied scenarios.

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 only 33% (query and reference have descriptions). The description itself does not explain the remaining parameters (limit, language, includeHelps, organization) and only mentions resource types, which are not directly tied to parameters. This leaves the agent to guess meanings of several important fields, so the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool performs a search over biblical translation resources (scripture, notes, questions, words) using BM25 scoring. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling fetch_* tools, which retrieve specific resources by identifier rather than searching across them.

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 implies usage as a discovery/search mechanism but does not explicitly state when to use it versus the fetch_* siblings. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so the guidance remains implicit rather than spelled out. The tool name itself signals a search role, but the description alone lacks explicit direction.

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