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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent profile, but the description adds real behavior: it automatically respects URL filters like ?v=onbv,kjv and ?lang=pt-br,en. That explains why results may be narrower than the full corpus, which no annotation conveys. It does not describe the shape of the returned list.

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, and the filter behavior is front-loaded before the usage instruction. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-required-param, read-only listing tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, usage routing, and filter behavior adequately; the absence of an output schema means the return format is only implied by 'Lists versions'.

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 'language' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the pt/pt-br/pt-pt nuance. The description's ?lang example only loosely reinforces this, so 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 (Lists) and resource (Bible versions) scoped to 'the current MCP connection', which clearly separates it from list_books and the get_/search_ siblings. An agent can identify exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: 'before lookup, search, or comparison when the user has not specified a version', which maps onto get_passage/get_verse, search_bible, and compare_passage. It stops short of naming the alternative tools directly or stating any when-not-to-use case.

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