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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: output is word-for-word text with verse numbers and a link, and cross-chapter ranges are out of scope. It stops short of describing error behavior for unresolvable references.

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, with the core purpose front-loaded and the format examples and scope constraint following. 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers input formats, output shape (verse numbers plus link), and scope limits. Remaining minor gaps are error handling for invalid or cross-chapter references and any rate or availability caveats.

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% with a single parameter, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further than the schema's one example by enumerating accepted forms: English or Thai book names, abbreviations, USFM codes, and ranges like 'Jn 3:16-18' and '1 Cor 13:4-7'. That materially reduces ambiguity about what the string may contain.

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: return the Eremos Translation (Thai) text of a Bible reference. It pins the scope ('one chapter or a verse range within one chapter') and is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_text, list_books, and get_translation_notes.

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 scope constraint (single chapter or intra-chapter range) and the accepted reference formats, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative (e.g. search_text for topical lookup). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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