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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses very little. It does not state whether resolution is read-only, what happens on an unresolvable/invalid reference, or what errors look like. For a bare lookup path that is a notable gap, though the operation is inherently simple.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core purpose stated immediately. The '[CHECK · internal]' prefix adds a bit of noise/metadata but is short and informative about scope.

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 simple one-parameter resolver with no output schema, the description states the essential purpose but omits the input format, error behavior, and any routing guidance. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would hit when forming a real reference string.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It conveys that the single 'ref' parameter is a Scripture reference, adding semantic meaning beyond the bare string type, but gives no format examples (e.g. 'John 3:16') or accepted range/abbreviation conventions despite the maxLength of 4000.

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 ('Resolve'), resource ('a Scripture reference'), and target output ('World English Bible text'), so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not, however, differentiate itself from plausible siblings like read_passage or lookup, leaving overlap ambiguous.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative among the many sibling lookup/passage tools (read_passage, lookup, locate). The context is only implied by the resource type.

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