study_topic

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains exactly what the tool returns: official church teaching, cited proof texts with full verse text, additional topic verses, and relevant EGW passages. It does not discuss edge cases such as unrecognized topics, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 well structured: a summary sentence, a concise return overview, a usage cue, and a compact Args list. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 two-parameter aggregation tool, the description covers purpose, return contents, the ideal question type, topic examples, and translation choices. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return structure, and the tool appears fully specified for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the Args section must compensate, and it does. It provides concrete topic examples ('the Sabbath', 'the state of the dead', 'the second coming') and explicitly lists the accepted translation values ('kjv, asv, ylt, or bbe'), adding real meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

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 first sentence, 'Build a full study on a doctrinal topic across all three sources,' states a specific verb, resource, and scope. The detailed list of returns—official teaching, cited proof texts, further verses, and Ellen G. White passages—clearly distinguishes this integrated tool from the single-source sibling tools.

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 explicitly gives a canonical use case: 'Use this for "why do Adventists believe X?" questions.' It clearly implies this tool is for comprehensive doctrinal studies rather than narrow source-specific lookups, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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