search_gospel_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does disclose 'No API key required' and the return format (list with titles and URLs). However, it omits potential edge cases (e.g., rate limits, empty results) and gives no detail on result pagination or ranking.

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 four short sentences, each adding distinct value: scope, return format, key requirement, and usage guidance. There is no redundancy or filler, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage context, return format, and authentication requirement. Given no output schema, it explains what is returned. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_article or browse_category, leaving a minor completeness gap.

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 schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions, including examples for query and category. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb 'Search' and resource 'Church of Jesus Christ Gospel Library (churchofjesuschrist.org)', and enumerates content types (articles, talks, scriptures, manuals, policies) and return format (list of titles and URLs). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_article and browse_category.

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 advises to 'Use this proactively when answering questions about Church doctrine, policies, scriptures, or general conference talks,' providing clear when-to-use context. It does not mention when to prefer alternatives, but the proactive guidance is a strong usage signal.

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