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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior. The one added behavioral fact is 'best match first', which usefully signals ranked rather than chronological results, but the description says nothing about result count, matching semantics (literal vs fuzzy), or pagination.

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?

It is short and the core purpose is front-loaded, but the leading 'Bible Swipe.' tagline duplicates the title and the trailing 'Bible: daily readings, plans, search and passage lookup (World English Bible)' is generic product boilerplate that covers sibling tools rather than this one.

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 single-parameter read-only search with full annotations and no output schema, the essentials are present. Still missing are what a 'reading' is and how many/which results return, which a caller might reasonably need.

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 sole parameter q is documented in the schema with examples ('forgiveness', 'shepherd'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('curated readings') and adds the ranking behavior ('best match first'). It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings like bible_list_readings or bible_get_reading, which an agent must infer are non-search alternatives.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative. The agent must infer that this is the query-based tool versus bible_list_readings (browse) or bible_get_passage (lookup), but the description never says so.

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