search_by_meaning

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints, so the description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: ranking by closeness of meaning, result limits and defaults, tagging with reference/translation, similarity scores, and the min_score threshold. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, then covers parameters and alternatives. It is somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds information. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., mentioning ranking and then similarity score), but overall it is well-organized and not wasteful.

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 presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to detail return shapes. It fully covers purpose, when to use, parameter behavior, output characteristics, and sibling alternatives. No obvious gaps remain for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema by integrating parameters into the tool's narrative (e.g., 'can be returned in any loaded translation', 'set min_score to drop weak matches') and providing examples for query. It slightly exceeds the baseline due to this contextual enrichment.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find Bible verses by meaning rather than exact wording.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming lookup_verse, search_keyword, and topic_verses as alternatives for different use cases.

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?

Explicit 'Use this when' guidance with concrete examples ('verses about anxiety', 'the good shepherd') and clear when-not-to-use instructions: 'If you already know the reference, use lookup_verse instead; if you need an exact word or phrase match, use search_keyword.' Also covers topic_verses for curated subjects.

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