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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: it explains that the response includes the exact verse positions so readers can verify the derivation rather than trust it, and it lists the specific data components returned.

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 focused sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by useful context. Each sentence earns its place: the first states behavior and output, the second explains the design rationale, and the third gives a concrete use case.

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?

The description is fairly complete for a simple read-only tool: it explains the return content and intended use, and no output schema exists to shift that burden. However, the number parameter is optional in the schema while the description implies an index is needed, and the description does not clarify what happens when number is omitted or out of range.

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 schema already documents lang, number, and compact clearly. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond restating the idea of retrieving a name by index, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 operation: returning one of the seventy two names by index, and enumerates the fields that will be included. It is distinguishable from the plural sibling get_kabbalah_names by the singular 'one... by its index', but it does not explicitly name that sibling or draw a contrast, so it does not earn a 5.

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 tool's purpose implies it should be used when a single name is needed by index, and the closing phrase 'built for birth angel detail pages and reference features' gives some context. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer the list-style sibling tool, and it does not state exclusions such as what happens if the optional number parameter is omitted.

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