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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds meaningful behavioral color: it reports 'how many verses it may quote verbatim per call' and explicitly notes 'Returns no scripture.' This is non-obvious, useful context that exceeds the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences with zero fluff. Front-loads the main purpose, follows with explicit use cases, and closes with an exclusion that clarifies scope. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a 0-param info tool with no output schema, this description covers all bases: what it reports, when to use it, and what it does not do (return scripture). Nothing is left dangling.

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 tool has 0 parameters and the schema is empty, so per baseline 0 params = 4. The description clarifies what data the tool returns (version, licences, attribution) which helps set expectations even though no params need documenting.

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 'Report' and pins down the resource: server's release version, loaded Bible data, licence, attribution, and per-call quote limits. It differentiates from sibling bible_lookup by explicitly stating 'Returns no scripture — use bible_lookup for verse text,' which leaves no ambiguity about scope.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when asked which version runs, when collecting facts for a bug report, and before planning a longer quotation') and names the alternative (bible_lookup) for the opposite case. The condition that selects this tool versus the sibling is crystal clear.

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