harmony

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: results are 'found, verbatim WEB text, never generated' and grouped by ministry phase. It omits other behavioral context such as authorization needs, pagination, or response size limits for the full list mode.

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?

A single dense sentence with a parenthetical, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the two operating modes. Efficient, though the bracket tag and parenthetical make it slightly harder to parse at a glance.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return shape — and it does, distinguishing a single-event side-by-side view from a phase-grouped event list. Given the low complexity (one optional param), this is close to complete.

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 coverage is 0% for the single id parameter, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by explaining that id selects one event versus the default full listing, but it gives no guidance on id format or where such an id comes from.

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 and behavior: 'Harmony of the Gospels — one event of Christ's life, every gospel that records it, side by side.' An agent can tell what it returns, though the description never names or distinguishes itself from adjacent siblings like read_passage, search, or cross_references.

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?

It clarifies the two modes — 'Pass id for one event; else lists every event grouped by phase of the ministry' — which is useful implied usage guidance. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over alternatives such as read_passage or a plain search, so selection guidance is left to inference.

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