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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and output but does not explain how resolution works, whether it validates references, what happens on errors, or whether it returns the entire passage or just a snippet. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for an agent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and easy to scan, though it could be slightly expanded to include important usage notes without becoming verbose.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain the return value and behavior. It states the tool returns 'World English Bible text', which provides a basic output expectation, but it omits error handling, reference edge cases, and response format. For a simple lookup, this is minimally adequate but still incomplete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It merely says 'ref' is a Scripture reference, which doesn't add meaning beyond the parameter name. It lacks examples or details on accepted formats (e.g., 'John 3:16', abbreviations, ranges), leaving the agent uncertain about how to format the reference.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and identifies both the resource ('a Scripture reference') and the result ('World English Bible text'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'commentary' or 'cross_references', though it could be confused with 'read_passage' without explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'read_passage' or 'search'. The description gives no context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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