search_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 disclosing behavior. It only states the basic retrieve action; it does not mention output format, default limits, read-only safety, or any constraints beyond being 'canonical' and 'major' topics. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with no annotation context.

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, tight sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded, though it omits some potentially useful context that would make it fully self-contained.

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 two-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description gives a minimally workable high-level idea of what is returned. However, it does not clarify the return shape (e.g., verse text, references, counts) or default pagination behavior, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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% (both 'topic' and 'limit' have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage or formatting beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('canonical verses categorized under major biblical topics'), clearly indicating what the tool does. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling search tools like search_keyword or search_semantic, so it stops short of a 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools. There is no mention of alternatives, conditions, or exclusions; usage is only implicitly tied to the 'topic' parameter.

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