Lamplight Daily Verse

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context those fields cannot: the 50-verse hard cap, the fact that text is verbatim and unchanging, and per-translation licensing (KJV public domain outside the UK; WEB public domain) that an agent needs for attribution. No error or failure behavior is described.

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 the capability, then the size limit, then formats, then provenance and licensing — a sensible order with no preamble. The licensing sentence is the longest and is lower-value for invocation, though defensible for a scripture source; the capability and example lists slightly overlap with the schema.

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 only two parameters, full schema coverage and a complete annotation set, the definition covers what an agent needs to construct a call. Since there is no output schema, the description should say something about the shape of the return (verse text with reference labels, ordering for ranges, etc.), and it does not; failure modes for unparseable references are also 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the KJV/WEB enum, the KJV default, the 64-char limit and the same three example references. The description only adds the expansion of WEB to "World English Bible", which is marginal. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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?

Names a specific verb (look up) and resource (Bible verse), then bounds the scope precisely: a single verse, a range within one chapter, or an entire chapter. The arbitrary-reference scope plus the named translations makes it distinguishable at a glance from todays_reflection and verse_of_the_day, which return a fixed daily passage.

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?

It states an operational rule for large requests ("At most 50 verses per call; split longer passages") and gives three example reference formats, which tells the agent what it can ask for. It never says when to prefer this tool over the two siblings, nor when not to use it, so routing must be inferred from the names alone.

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 readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, and the description goes well beyond them: content provenance (reflections AI-assisted and checked, scripture never AI-written), the daily midnight US Eastern refresh cadence, the strict date window, KJV licensing restrictions, and the meaning of data_updated_at. These are exactly the facts an agent needs to decide whether a call is safe to repeat and how to attribute the output.

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 core purpose and the date rule are front-loaded, and the extra clauses about AI provenance, update cadence and licensing are each short and load-bearing. The KJV licensing parenthetical is the one piece that borders on clutter for a calling agent, keeping it just short of top marks.

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 the return: it names the reflection, the one-line prayer, the KJV verse, and the data_updated_at field, which is enough to reason about the payload. It does not describe the overall response envelope or error behavior for out-of-window dates, a minor remaining gap for a one-parameter tool.

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 schema already documents the YYYY-MM-DD pattern, the yesterday/today/tomorrow window, and the US Eastern default. The description restates the same constraints almost verbatim, adding essentially no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the exact resources returned: the short reflection, the one-line prayer, and the verse in KJV for a day's verse. It implicitly separates itself from verse_of_the_day (which supplies only the verse) and lookup_verse (arbitrary reference lookup), but it never names either sibling, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

It establishes the operating window clearly (date must be yesterday, today or tomorrow, US Eastern, defaulting to today) and notes content refreshes once a day at midnight US Eastern, which tells an agent when a cached call is still valid. However, it never says when to prefer this over verse_of_the_day or lookup_verse, nor any exclusion such as 'do not use for historical dates beyond tomorrow.'

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations cannot convey: the midnight US Eastern rollover, the fixed one-verse-per-day list, word-for-word fidelity, licensing, and the data_updated_at field. It does not discuss failure modes for out-of-range dates.

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-loads what the tool returns and how the day boundary works, then covers parameters. The licensing sentence is boilerplate but short and legally relevant; nothing is badly padded.

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 names the returned text and the data_updated_at field, and explains the day-boundary semantics that an agent must know to pass a valid date. Adequate for a simple two-parameter read tool.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented with patterns, enums and defaults. The description restates the translation options and the date window rather than adding new syntax 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get the Bible verse of the day'), the upstream source (Lamplight), and the two available translations. The phrase 'fixed list of daily verses, one per calendar day' implicitly but clearly separates it from lookup_verse-style arbitrary lookups and from todays_reflection.

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?

Explains that the date parameter should cover yesterday, today or tomorrow so a reader in any time zone gets their own day, which is real usage guidance. It does not explicitly name when to prefer lookup_verse or todays_reflection instead, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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