Cross + Covenant Bible

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the date default resolves in Mountain Time, and on dates lacking a devotional the response degrades to scripture only — a variable return shape the agent must anticipate.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the important operational facts (Mountain Time default, fallback behavior) are placed after the content summary rather than buried. Every clause carries information.

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 it does so concretely (scripture in WEB or KJV, reflection, prayer) while flagging the alternate return on dates without a devotional. Nothing needed to call this tool correctly 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?

Single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the YYYY-MM-DD pattern and the Mountain Time default. The description only restates the default that the schema already documents, adding no new format or edge-case detail, so the 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 a specific verb (Returns) plus the resource (the Cross + Covenant daily devotional) and itemizes the payload: scripture passage, reflection, prayer. It's clear what the tool produces, but it never contrasts itself against siblings like get_passage or search_scripture, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the content ('daily devotional for a date'), and it does disclose the default (today, Mountain Time) and the fallback case. However it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or point the agent to get_passage for arbitrary scripture, which is the most likely confusion given that the fallback returns a passage.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the public-domain sourcing, the 150-verse/2-chapter cap, and the truncation behavior ('returns the first part and names the rest').

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 what the tool returns, then supported translations, then accepted reference syntax, then limits. Every sentence carries information, though the example list of four references is somewhat lengthy relative to the rest.

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 two-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema absent, the description supplies the truncation semantics and size limits an agent needs to call it correctly. The only gap is the absence of explicit sibling routing.

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 both the 'reference' and 'translation' parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including examples and the enum. The description reinforces accepted reference syntax but adds no meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Returns the text of') and resource ('a Bible passage'), and names the two supported translations. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like search_scripture and get_devotional without opening any schema.

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 clarifies what reference formats are accepted (verse, range, chapter, multi-reference with ';'), which implicitly tells the agent when this tool fits. However, it never explicitly contrasts with siblings like search_scripture, so the agent gets no routing guidance between competing tools.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real context beyond them: the default resolution to today in Mountain Time, the date-only-applies-to-M'Cheyne constraint, and the up-to-150-verses cap on returned text. No contradictions; it simply does not describe error cases.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the primary behavior comes first and the parameter qualifiers follow. Dense but every clause carries meaning.

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 return-value burden and does so reasonably: it names the returned passages, the optional verse text, the translations, and the verse cap. Missing only return-shape details like ordering or empty-day handling.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema by disclosing the fallback default (today, Mountain Time) when neither day nor date is given, and tying include_text to the ~150-verse limit and translation choice.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Returns the passages for one day of a Cross + Covenant reading plan.' The scope (one day's passages, with optional verse text) is clear enough to distinguish from a single-passage or devotional tool, though no sibling is named explicitly to route the agent.

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 implicitly guides parameter choice ('by day number or ... by calendar date' and the today-in-Mountain-Time fallback), but never states when to pick this over get_passage or get_devotional, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is its disclosure of return content: each plan's id, length and purpose. That is useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields, though it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or the calendar-only nature of the M'Cheyne plan for consumers.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence stating the verb, the resource, and the concrete contents of the result. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 usefully compensates by naming the fields returned (id, length, purpose) and the plan inventory, which is enough to call a zero-parameter read tool correctly. Only the absence of ordering/response-shape detail keeps it from being fully 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies an unfiltered full-list operation with no inputs.

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 states a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('the Cross + Covenant Bible reading plans'), and even enumerates the plan inventory (M'Cheyne one-year plus five topical plans). It is clearly distinct from sibling get_reading_plan_day, though it never names that sibling or any alternative to route between them.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before calling get_reading_plan_day, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use statement, prerequisites, or named alternative. Nothing is misleading, but nothing is spelled out either.

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

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 goes beyond them with genuinely useful behavior: stop words are ignored, stemming matches longer forms ('fear' → 'fears', 'feared'), and results come back ranked by match closeness. Return format/pagination is the only notable omission.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and what it searches, with matching behavior and scoping constraints following. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 explaining returns, and it does: verses ranked by match closeness. Combined with 100% schema coverage for all five parameters, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only pagination/result-count behavior is left unstated.

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 baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning on top: it explains the matching semantics of the query parameter (stop-word filtering, stemming) and confirms that results can be scoped to one book or one testament. It does not add anything for limit or translation beyond the schema's own enums and defaults.

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 ('Finds Bible verses containing the given words') plus the two translations searched and the relevance ranking. An agent can immediately separate this keyword-search tool from reference-based siblings like get_passage or get_devotional without opening a schema.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the 'containing the given words' framing tells the agent this is for keyword lookup, not chapter/verse retrieval. However, no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. 'use get_passage when you already know the reference').

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