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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds a useful behavioral guarantee beyond annotations: it promises comparison 'without blending or interpreting the source texts,' clarifying output fidelity and scope. No auth, rate-limit, or pagination details are provided, but those are not critical here.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. It communicates the core operation efficiently.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the description lacks sibling routing guidance and any parameter format details, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the 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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain book_id, chapter, or verse semantics beyond implying a single verse is required. It does not specify the expected book_id format or translation identifiers, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('one exact verse') with named translations (BSB and WEB), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like faith_scripture_lookup or faith_passage_context_preview, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as faith_scripture_lookup or faith_passage_context_preview. The phrase 'without blending or interpreting' hints at a use case, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are given.

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