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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that results are in each commentator's own words and include links, which is not captured in the annotations or schema.

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 two efficient sentences, front-loading the return value before the narrowing option. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 read-only tool with fully described parameters and clear annotations, the description provides enough to call it correctly and understand the returned commentary format. The main missing piece is comparative guidance against sibling tools, which is a usage concern rather than a basic invocation gap.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description's phrase 'Can be limited to named commentators' mirrors the commentators parameter but adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it returns commentary on a verse or passage, naming representative commentators. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like fetch_text or semantic_search.

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 explains what the tool returns and that results can be limited to named commentators, but it gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of fetch_text, resolve_ref, or semantic_search. Usage is only implied by the purpose statement.

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