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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation (no mutation), and gives input format examples, but it does not disclose output format, error handling, or any further behavioral details. For a simple read tool, this is acceptable but not rich.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool only has one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like or any limitations, which would be important for an agent to know. The examples help, but the description could be more informative about the output.

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?

The schema only provides a string type for 'ref', but the description adds concrete meaning with examples like 'John 3:16-18' and 'John 3'. This clarifies the expected format and compensates for the lack of schema descriptions (0% coverage).

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 reads a passage of the WEB, with specific resource (biblical text) and verb (read). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search' or 'commentary' by focusing on reading a passage directly.

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 clear context on what types of references are accepted (single verse, range, chapter), implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The examples make the usage context clear, but there are no exclusions.

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