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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: coverage of the whole Bible, OT vs NT source texts, text-type options, the Comma Johanneum caveat, and the fact that output labels the edition. This goes well beyond the annotation baseline.

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 long but well-structured: purpose, use case, coverage, and text-type details are ordered logically. Every sentence contributes critical information, and the front-loaded opening gives immediate clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (original language, morphology, OT/NT text types), the description covers all essential aspects: what is returned, how to choose text types, coverage scope, and output labeling. The presence of an output schema means return-value details are not required, and nothing important is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains the OT/NT source difference, notes that texttyp is ignored for the OT, and highlights that 'tr' is the only text type with the Comma Johanneum, plus a comparison use case. This enriches parameter understanding usefully.

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 names a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('one Bible verse word-by-word in the ORIGINAL language with lemma, Strong's number and full morphology'), clearly differentiating it from translation-focused tools. The contrast with inferring from a translation reinforces a distinct purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('verify what the original text says — e.g. whether a noun is singular or plural') and implicitly contrasts with translation-based inference. It does not name sibling tools but provides a clear use case and text-type selection guidance, making the intended context unambiguous.

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