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 nothing beyond that — no indication of what 'line by line' means in the response, whether the plan variant paginates, or how much content is returned.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, but the space is spent restating the title and an app-level tagline rather than conveying tool-specific information. Structurally clean yet redundant, so no sentence earns much.

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 lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify what is returned and how it differs from sibling retrieval tools (card, passage, today). It does neither, leaving the agent to guess which Bible retrieval tool fits a request.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is already well documented in the schema (accepts a reading id from list_readings or a plan name like "japji"). The description adds no format or validity detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 repeats the tool title verbatim ("One reading or plan, line by line") and then lists app-level features ("daily readings, plans, search and passage lookup") rather than stating what this specific tool does. It never names a verb+resource such as 'returns the text of a reading' and gives no basis for distinguishing it from bible_get_passage, bible_get_card, bible_get_today, or bible_list_readings.

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 when-to-use guidance, no condition distinguishing this from bible_get_passage/bible_get_today/bible_list_readings, and no mention of prerequisites. The only routing hint ('an id from list_readings') lives in the schema parameter description, not the tool description.

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