people_in_passage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context that it is essential for passage study and returns entity lists. No contradictions, and the description provides additional useful detail beyond annotations.

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?

Description is well-structured with a strong first sentence, clear purpose, usage scenarios, and a direct comparison with a sibling tool. Every sentence adds value, no fluff or repetition.

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 single parameter, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and how it differs from alternatives. It explains the return type (list of people, places, events) sufficiently.

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?

Input schema has one parameter 'reference' with description covering chapter and verse formats; schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not add further parameter information beyond what schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns all people, places, and events in a passage, with examples like 'Abraham, Isaac, angel of the LORD, Moriah' for Genesis 22. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool graph_enriched_search by noting difference in scope and output.

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 starts with an imperative 'ALWAYS USE THIS' and provides explicit when-to-use scenarios: studying narrative passages, explaining chapters, or user asking about a passage. It also directly compares with graph_enriched_search, giving clear guidance on tool selection.

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