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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is a full-text search and that it returns passages themselves, implying a read-only operation. But it does not mention match semantics, sorting, pagination, authentication needs, or rate limits, which are relevant for a search tool.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value, and the core action and result are stated immediately.

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 fairly simple and has an output schema, so return-value elaboration is not required. However, the description omits any guidance on the 'translation' parameter (e.g., what values are valid, what the default 'BSB' means), the effect of 'limit,' and when the search tool is preferred over siblings. These gaps are not fatal but make the definition only minimally 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It only gives meaning to 'query' via 'containing a phrase'; 'limit' and 'translation' receive no explanation at all, leaving their semantics to the agent's assumptions.

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 says 'Find verses containing a phrase' with a specific verb, resource, and search behavior. It further clarifies 'Full-text search over the corpus; returns the passages themselves,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_verse (exact retrieval) and get_context (context around 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 implies when to use it—when you need to find verses by phrase content rather than by reference. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the siblings, leaving the agent to infer the boundary against get_verse and get_context.

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