BEREAN.AI

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

With no annotations, the description adds behavioral context: answer length (250-400 words), theological perspective (Reformed), and inclusion of Scripture references. This goes beyond the input schema, though it omits potential constraints like response time or auth requirements.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and output, the second provides usage guidance. Every element contributes value.

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 param, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, output characteristics (length, style, references), and appropriate use cases. Sibling tools help complete the context.

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 100% and the schema already fully describes the parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'The biblical or theological question to answer'. Baseline 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 specifies a clear verb ('Ask') and resource ('biblical or theological question') with a defined output ('concise pastoral answer grounded in Reformed theology'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'pastoral' and 'Reformed theology', implying different focus than 'scholar_query' or 'search_sources'.

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 states when to use: 'Best for practical faith questions, doctrine overviews, and life application.' This provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude other uses or mention alternatives, though siblings exist.

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

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

No annotations provided; description mentions 'updated daily' as a behavioral trait. However, lacks disclosure of safety (e.g., read-only, no side effects). Minimal additional value beyond the description's explicit content.

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?

Three succinct sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then details of return values and update frequency. No redundant information, each sentence adds value.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and low complexity, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns. Could mention that only current date is available, but implied.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage. Description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable given no params. Baseline score of 4 for no-parameter tools.

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?

Clearly states it gets today's daily devotion from BEREAN.AI, specifying the returned components (Scripture reference, verse text, devotional message). Distinguished from siblings like get_daily_exposition by focusing solely on devotion.

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?

Implicitly indicates use for obtaining daily devotion, but no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Siblings like get_daily_exposition could be relevant but not mentioned.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses output content and daily updates but omits behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication needs, or rate limits. Suitable but not exhaustive.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loaded with the action. Each sentence adds value, but structure could be slightly improved with bullet points for output components.

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?

For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return value structure adequately. However, it does not clarify if the tool only works for today's date or if date can be overridden, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No parameters are defined in the input schema, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Schema coverage is 100% trivially.

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 retrieves today's One Year Bible reading exposition from BEREAN.AI. It specifies the resource and action, listing returned components (Scripture references, teaser, exposition), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_daily_devotion.

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 implies usage for today's exposition but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. No comparison with sibling tools, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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

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

The description discloses the two-stage retrieval method (dense vector search + cross-encoder reranking), the scale of indexed passages (2M+), the specific sources included, and the output format (detailed answers with citations). No annotations are present, so the description carries full disclosure burden and meets it well.

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 concise and well-structured: it begins with the core purpose and method, then lists specific sources, and ends with the output type. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the necessary aspects: retrieval mechanism, source scope, and output format. It provides enough information for an AI agent to use the tool appropriately.

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 already provides a description for the single 'question' parameter (maxLength, type). The tool description adds context about 'academic biblical or theological' but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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: an academic biblical research query using two-stage retrieval across specific scholarly sources. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_daily_devotion' and 'search_sources' by emphasizing academic depth and specific source coverage.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (academic biblical research) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. The context effectively implies it is not for simple queries or devotions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description covers retrieval method (dense vector retrieval with cross-encoder reranking) and return type (raw source passages from specific sources), providing good behavioral insight without contradictions.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

For a search tool with no output schema, the description explains the return type (raw passages) and sources. It lacks details on pagination or result limits but is otherwise adequate.

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 only parameter 'query' has 100% schema description coverage. The tool's description does not add further detail about query syntax or format beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline.

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 searches the BEREAN.AI knowledge base for relevant passages without generating an AI answer, specifying the verb, resource, and outcome. It distinguishes from generating answers but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like scholar_query.

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 indicates it is useful for getting primary source data, implying a use case, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like ask_question or scholar_query.

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