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

With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses return values ('whether the quote is real, the exact canonical wording, the correct reference, and a confidence score') and a key behavioral trait ('Deterministic — no AI generation'). This goes beyond typical tool descriptions and sets clear expectations.

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 three sentences: the first clearly states the purpose, the second lists return values, and the third provides usage guidance and a determinism note. Every sentence carries weight, with no redundant information, making it concise and front-loaded.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns, including the confidence score. It also specifies the use case and deterministic nature, making the description complete for this simple verification tool with only one required parameter.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema; it refers to 'claimed Bible quote' and 'correct reference,' but the schema already describes the quote and reference parameters fully. Thus, the description adds no extra semantic value for parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Fact-check a claimed Bible quote against the actual text.' It specifies the verb 'fact-check' and the resource 'Bible quote,' and further distinguishes itself from siblings by detailing that it returns verification results, exact wording, reference, and confidence score.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this before publishing any Bible quote to catch misquotes, wrong verse numbers, and verses that do not exist in the Bible at all.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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