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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does indicate a read-only operation and previews the return values (text, URL, connection count), which is useful. But it does not explain what 'connections it carries' means, how the translation parameter affects behavior, or what happens when the reference is invalid or absent.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds distinct information: the operation and the return contents. This is appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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 tool is simple and has an output schema, so the returns need not be exhaustively spelled out. However, correctness depends on understanding parameter values and selection criteria among siblings, both of which are under-specified. The description is adequate for a basic read operation but not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It fails to mention 'reference' or 'translation' at all, leaving the agent to infer that 'reference' denotes a verse identifier from the word 'verse.' No syntax, format, or default meaning is provided, which is a significant gap for a 2-parameter tool.

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 'Read one verse,' a specific verb and resource that immediately clarifies the tool's function. The mention of returning text, canonical URL, and connection count further distinguishes it from siblings like search_verses (which searches) and get_connections (which returns connections themselves), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 phrase 'Read one verse' conveys an implied use case: retrieving a single verse. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as search_verses or get_connection, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. Guidance is present only by inference.

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