find_scriptures_by_life_situation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool matches situations to 'verified scripture anchors,' but it does not explain how matching works, whether results are ranked, how auto emotion detection behaves, what language support does, or what the response contains.

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 focused sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is concise even though it sacrifices some behavioral and usage detail, which belongs to other dimensions.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin to fully prepare an agent for selection and invocation. It does not describe what a 'scripture anchor' looks like in the response, when to choose this tool over sibling search tools, or how the emotion and language parameters shape output. The parameter schema makes the call possible, but expectation-setting is incomplete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds domain context and example life-situation categories, but it does not explain parameter interactions or formats beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('matching') with a specific resource ('real-world human trials ... with verified scripture anchors') and a clear domain ('Pastoral counseling'). This makes the tool semantically distinct from generic siblings like search_keyword and search_topic, even without naming 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 phrase 'Pastoral counseling tool' and the enumerated trials (anxiety, grief, burnout, loneliness, conflict) imply when to use it: when someone describes a life struggle rather than a keyword or topic query. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over sibling search tools or any exclusion criteria.

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