journeys

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the two-step list/detail pattern, the nature of the data ('commonly proposed reconstructions, not certainties'), and specific fields ('honesty status', 'coordinates where confident'). This enriches understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It efficiently covers the two modes of use and the important caveat about reconstructions, with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no required args) and the presence of an output schema, the description is highly complete. It explains the list and detail workflows, what to expect in the output (stops, honesty status, coordinates, verses), and the epistemic status (commonly proposed reconstructions). There are no significant gaps for an agent to invoke and interpret results 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?

The input schema already provides full coverage (100%) for the single parameter journey_id, with a description explaining its meaning and default behavior. The tool description reiterates this usage ('Call with no arguments... then call again with a journey_id') but adds no new semantic information beyond examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a score 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs: 'Browse the curated biblical journeys, or get one journey's ordered stops.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on curated journeys rather than individual verses or words, and provides examples of journey ids. This is a clear, specific, and distinct purpose.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call with no arguments to list the journeys... then call again with a journey_id for the detail.' This tells the agent when to call with and without arguments. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the guidance is clear enough for correct invocation.

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