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 one useful behavioral fact — only 'published' decision records are returned, implying drafts are excluded — but says nothing about behavior when no note exists for a verse. Moderate value over the annotations.

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 waste. The return content is front-loaded and the usage condition follows, so an agent scanning the first clause immediately knows what it gets back.

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 fields, and it does so well (source words, Thai rendering, reason, notes). It omits only edge-case behavior (verse with no published note), which keeps it just short of 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'reference' parameter is fully documented in the schema with an example. The description only reinforces the cardinality constraint ('one verse'), adding little beyond what the schema already conveys; 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+resource ('Return the published decision record for one verse') and enumerates the payload: source words, Thai chosen, translator's reason, notes. It is easily distinguished from get_passage/search_text by content, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Provides a clear triggering condition ('Useful when a user asks why the Thai reads as it does'), which tells the agent exactly the user intent this tool serves. It gives no when-not guidance or explicit alternative routing, so it stops short of a 5.

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