church_fathers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing result ordering (oldest first) and per-quote structure (work and citation). It is silent on what max_chars does to output, which is the one behavior an agent would actually need to anticipate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and its ordering, then the parameter note. No repetition of the tool name or filler.

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 output schema, the description does supply the return shape (quotes plus work and citation, sorted oldest first), which is the key missing piece. The remaining gap is max_chars semantics; otherwise an agent could call this correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does well for 'author', explaining substring matching with concrete examples ('Augustine', 'Chrysostom'), but says nothing about 'max_chars' (default 2500) despite that being a truncation control with real behavioral consequences, and 'ref' is left to inference.

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?

States a specific resource (church fathers and historical writers on a passage) and names the corpus (ANF/NPNF, Historical Christian Faith database), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'commentary' tool, which is the nearest alternative, so it falls 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?

Usage is implied by the corpus named: use this when you want patristic quotes rather than modern commentary or dictionary definitions. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no routing to 'commentary', 'passage', or 'check_quote' despite those being obvious alternatives.

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