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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: the 50-verse limit, single-chapter constraint, local-text-only operation, copyright/license/source attribution requirements, the instruction to preserve attribution and distinguish commentary, and the explicit statement that no translation or AI generation is performed.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the main purpose in the first phrase. Every sentence carries distinct value: constraints, source behavior, attribution guidance, the USFM code format, and the no-translation/no-AI guarantee. There is no redundant 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?

The description covers the key operational constraints, source behavior, attribution requirements, and explicit exclusions (no translation, no AI), while annotations cover safety and idempotency. The input schema covers all parameters at 100% and an output schema is present, so nothing critical for correct invocat ion is missing.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds a useful note about USFM book IDs with examples and reinforces the 50-verse limit, but it does not substantially expand on meanings beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read up to 50 unchanged UBG verses from one chapter.' It clearly identifies the exact scope and distinguishes this tool from the sibling getters, which target churches, people, places, prayers, and sermons rather than Bible passages.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: for reading verbatim UBG verses, using local text only, and without translation or AI generation. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the sibling tools are all for different resource types, so the intended usage is not ambiguous.

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