search_semantic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the conceptual search behavior, but does not explain whether results are ranked, how many are returned, whether exact concept matching is required, or whether it handles related terms. This is adequate but not detailed.

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?

One sentence with examples; every element earns its place. The examples clarify the intended thematic space without extra fluff.

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 simple single-parameter search tool without an output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose and parameter semantics. It lacks return format/pagination/ranking details, but the simplicity of the tool makes the description minimally viable.

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%, so the schema defines the necessary parameter. The description adds semantic context by framing the parameter as an existential or theological theme and gives examples (anxiety, grief, forgiveness), which helps the agent choose appropriate values.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('canonical verses') with thematic scope ('existential/theological themes'), which is clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like search_topic or search_keyword, so it isn't a full 5.

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 when to use it: when searching for verses by existential or theological themes. But it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or alternatives like search_topic or find_scriptures_by_life_situation, leaving selection partially to inference.

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