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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that output is delivered 'one line at a time' (implying the n parameter pages through lines) and is voice-oriented, which is modest but real context beyond the 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?

Two short sentences, but the first is an exact duplicate of the title and the second is app-wide boilerplate covering readings, plans, search and passage lookup — content that has nothing to do with this specific tool. Useful signal ('one line at a time') is buried inside the repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain what is returned, and it never defines a 'card' or the per-line output shape an agent would receive when paging through n. For a tool whose whole purpose is line-by-line voice output, this leaves a meaningful gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so n, date, and reading are already fully documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about what a 'card' number means or how date/reading interact with daily defaults.

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 restates the title verbatim and adds only an app-level tagline ('Bible: daily readings, plans, search and passage lookup'). 'Today's reading one line at a time' hints at the resource and granularity, but the verb is never stated and the concept of a 'card' is left undefined. It does not distinguish this tool from bible_get_reading, bible_get_today, or bible_get_passage.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (bible_get_reading, bible_get_today, bible_get_passage, bible_list_readings). The phrase 'for voice' faintly implies a use case but sets no condition or exclusion an agent could act on.

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