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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world reads, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral content on top: the exact output window (one verse before/after, same chapter only) and the guarantee that no interpretation is generated.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the returned artifact and its scope, closing with the key negative guarantee. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 shape needn't be explained, and the window semantics are stated. However, with four required, zero-documented parameters the definition is thin, and edge behavior (e.g., verse 1 or the last verse of a chapter having no neighbor) is unaddressed.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and does not. It never clarifies source_id values (bsb/web), book_id format conventions, or chapter/verse numbering assumptions, leaving the agent to infer semantics from bare field names and numeric bounds.

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 (Return) and a precisely scoped resource: the requested verse plus one same-chapter verse before and after. This is distinguishable from a plain lookup or a search tool by the context-window semantics, though no sibling is named to reinforce the distinction.

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 clause 'no generated interpretation' implicitly signals this is the raw-context option rather than an interpretive/guide tool such as faith_topic_guide_preview, but it never states when to pick this over faith_scripture_lookup or faith_passage_compare_preview. Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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