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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and closed-world, so safety is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the reply contract (`next` carries the arguments for the continuation call) and the language behavior (not a filter, results report their actual language). It also routes verse quoting to get_verse via `unit_id`, which is behavior an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the when-to-use clause, then the three-step procedure, then the handoff to get_verse. Every sentence carries distinct information; no filler or restatement of the name.

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?

Eight parameters and no output schema would normally be a gap, but the description supplies the missing return-value contract (`next`, labels and translations, paging) and the stepwise invocation model. An agent can drive the full browse sequence from this text alone.

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%, so each parameter is already documented; the description adds the compositional semantics the schema lacks — which parameters belong to which of the three steps and that `chapter` must be the `index` from the previous listing. It does not restate pagination semantics, but the schema handles those adequately.

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 and resource ("Walk a work's structure in order") and immediately concretizes the hierarchy: work -> sections -> chapters -> verses. It also explicitly contrasts itself with search_texts, so an agent can choose between browsing and searching without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete triggering situations (reading a chapter or book through, asking what follows a verse, asking what a book contains) and names the alternative that cannot serve them ("search_texts cannot do that"). It also prescribes exact escalation: `work` alone, then `section`, then `chapter` with the `index`.

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