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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral caveat — the tagging data only appears "where the words line up with the tagging" — implying partial results. It says nothing about payload size, latency, or how truncation interacts with the many lists, which matters for a heavy response.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the content inventory, then the usage condition — a sensible order. The long comma-separated feature list is dense but each item is a distinct return category, so little is wasted; only the sheer enumeration risks being skimmed.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so thoroughly, covering text, tagging, and nine categories of cross-reference material. The gaps are sibling routing and any hint about response size or pagination, which is the main thing an agent needs before calling a tool this heavy.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by imposing a hard limit of five verses, a constraint absent from the schema's reference parameter, which only shows range examples. It still adds nothing about edition or format behavior beyond what the schema documents.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Returns one verse, or a range of up to 5, in full") and then enumerates the payload: original/English text, Strong's tagging, cross-references, quotations, parallels, Ketiv/Qere, Targum links. An agent knows exactly what it gets. It never names a sibling, though, so it doesn't differentiate itself from get_context, get_passage, or get_cross_references.

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?

"Use when the user wants a thorough look at one verse, or up to five" gives a positive trigger, which is real guidance. But there is no when-not and no routing to the many overlapping siblings (get_context, get_passage, get_cross_references, get_quotations). The verse-count bound implicitly separates it from passage tools, but the agent must infer that.

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