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

Annotations already establish read-only/non-destructive behavior. The description adds the concrete output inventory (paragraph, footnotes, coords, adjacent verses, URL) and a normative citation rule, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two short, information-dense sentences are front-loaded with the core result and followed by the citation rule. No filler or 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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return contents, the id provenance via schema, and the intended citation use. It does not explain coordinates, but the enumeration is sufficient for selection and 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 100%: id and book are already well-described, including allowed book identifiers and the [book/id] format from search results. The description itself adds no parameter detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource (a single verse) and the returned content (full original text including main paragraphs, footnotes, coords, neighboring verses, URL), so an agent knows what the tool retrieves. It is clear but names no sibling tool, so differentiation from get_outline/get_related is implicit rather than explicit.

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 second sentence makes the use case explicit: any quotation/citation must be based on original text confirmed by this tool. This is strong when-to-use guidance, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative routing.

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