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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses useful behavioral details: verses are returned ordered by verse number, and book_code accepts multiple formats (OSIS, USFM, full name, alias). This adds meaningful context without contradicting annotations.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and immediately followed by a useful nuance about book_code. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of schema or annotation data.

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 read-only, idempotent tool with a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description is complete. It covers the main behavior (returning all verses in order) and input flexibility, leaving no significant gaps.

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 input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, providing a baseline of 3. The description goes further by clarifying accepted formats for book_code (OSIS, USFM, full name, alias), which is not fully explicit in the schema and adds practical guidance.

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 states a specific action ('Get every verse in a Bible chapter') with a clear resource and output ordering ('ordered by verse number'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bible.verse, which likely returns a single verse.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for retrieving an entire chapter, which establishes a clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the purpose statement itself provides strong guidance.

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