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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: ordering (canonical), the scope of the catalog (includes deuterocanonical books), and what each entry carries. It does not state whether results are filtered or annotated when a translation is supplied.

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?

One dense but well-formed sentence with zero filler; the ordering and scope facts are front-loaded before the deuterocanonical caveat. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is a bonus rather than required, and the description is adequate for a zero-required-parameter listing tool. The only real gap is how the optional translation parameter affects the returned set.

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 100% and the single enum parameter is fully documented with its default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's phrase "which translations carry them" hints at multi-translation output but does not clarify whether passing translation narrows the list or merely changes labeling.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ("List books") with concrete output detail: canonical order, chapter counts, which translations carry each book, and inclusion of deuterocanonical/Septuagint material. It is clearly distinct from list_translations and list_backgrounds as a resource, though it never names a sibling to route against.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the catalog/browse call before get_passage or search_scripture, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative named. The role of the translation parameter in shaping results is also left implicit.

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