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.