Bible Swipe

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral trait that output is delivered 'one line at a time', implying card-by-card paging, but it never says how many lines exist or how to detect the end, so the disclosure is partial.

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 first sentence is a verbatim copy of the title, and the second is an unrelated server blurb appended with a stray double period ('voice..'), so the text contains no unique information. It is short, but size here reflects duplication rather than discipline.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining what a 'card' is and what is returned; it does not. An agent knows only that a paged line is returned, with no sense of ordering, boundary between cards, or relationship to the reading/plan ids from list_readings.

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, including defaults and formats. The description's 'one line at a time' loosely corresponds to n but adds no syntax, range or interaction detail beyond the schema, so 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?

States it returns today's reading broken into lines, which is slightly more specific than the title, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like get_reading and get_today. The second sentence is a server-level catalogue blurb ('Bible: daily readings, plans, search and passage lookup') rather than a statement of this tool's purpose.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite four plausible sibling tools (get_reading, get_today, get_passage, list_readings) that an agent must choose between. 'for voice' hints at an intended consumer but does not tell the agent when this paged tool is preferable to get_reading.

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

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 the useful corpus fact that the text is the World English Bible, but says nothing about behavior for invalid references, formatting of returned verses, or error handling.

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?

One compact sentence with zero filler and the scope information front-loaded. It is arguably too terse given the missing verb and routing guidance, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 tool with a complete schema and annotations covering safety, this is minimally adequate. It still leaves gaps an agent would want: whether the output includes verse numbers, what book-name format is expected, and what happens on an unresolvable reference.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema supplies an example ("John 3:16"), so the baseline would be 3. The description earns an extra point by clarifying that the single 'ref' parameter accepts chapters and cross-chapter ranges (Genesis 1:1-2:3), not just single verses as the schema example suggests.

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 names a specific resource (a passage of the World English Bible) and enumerates the accepted scope (verse, range, chapter, cross-chapter range) with a concrete example. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb phrase and offers no explicit differentiation from siblings like get_reading, so it is clear but stops short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_reading, get_today, or search_readings, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusion conditions. The agent must infer routing from the tool name alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'line by line' (output granularity) and identifies the translation (World English Bible); it says nothing about error behavior when an id is not found or about the shape of the returned lines.

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: the core purpose leads, with the domain qualifier trailing. The second sentence is somewhat vague and reads like a category label rather than useful instruction, but there is no padding.

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 one fully documented required parameter and annotations covering the safety/idempotency profile, the essentials are present. But with no output schema, the description should do more to explain what 'line by line' actually returns, especially for plans versus readings, which are plausibly different payloads.

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 fully documented in the schema, including that it can be a plan name such as 'japji'. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 for high coverage 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 first sentence states a retrievable resource ('one reading or plan') with output granularity ('line by line'), which is reasonably specific. However, the second sentence ('Bible: daily readings, plans, search and passage lookup') is a domain tagline that describes capabilities belonging to siblings like search_readings and get_passage, muddying rather than sharpening the tool's distinct purpose.

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 call get_reading versus list_readings, search_readings, get_passage, or get_today. The schema hint about ids coming from list_readings implies a workflow, but the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond the title — no auth needs, no indication of which translation or calendar the "today" reading follows, and no note on whether the result reflects live or cached content.

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 first clause is appropriately front-loaded and brief, but the trailing sentence ("Bible: daily readings, plans, search and passage lookup (World English Bible)") is server-level boilerplate describing the whole app, not this tool, so it consumes space without earning it.

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 zero-required-param, no-output-schema tool, the description is minimally adequate: "line by line" implies a granular text result. However, it omits what the reading actually contains (which translation, which plan/lectionary, ordering) and gives no sense of response shape or size.

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 the single date parameter (format, default to today UTC) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

"Today's reading, line by line" names a specific resource and hints at the output granularity, so the agent knows it's a fetching tool. But it is largely a restatement of the tool name/title and never distinguishes it from siblings like get_reading or list_readings, which sound almost identical.

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 at all — nothing says when to pick this over get_reading, get_card, or get_passage, nor what preconditions or defaults apply beyond the schema. The trailing sentence about the app generally is not usage guidance.

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

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 fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond the title's restatement – no note on pagination, result volume, or whether plans and readings are returned together.

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 scope is front-loaded, but the second sentence does not earn its place: it describes the broader Bible API rather than this tool, adding confusion instead of signal.

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 parameterless read-only list tool with annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. What is missing is whether the response contains readings, plans, or both, and how it relates to the more specific sibling getters.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema-side burden is nil and the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter to mis-describe or omit.

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 first sentence identifies the resource ('curated daily readings and plans') and, combined with the name, implies an enumeration. However, the second sentence muddies scope by advertising 'search and passage lookup,' which are actually covered by siblings search_readings and get_passage, so the boundary between this tool and its siblings is blurred rather than clarified.

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 statement of when to call this versus get_reading, get_today, search_readings, or get_passage. The mention of 'search and passage lookup' reads as a capability claim rather than a routing rule, leaving the agent to infer the choice.

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

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 fully covered. The description adds two real behavioral facts beyond that: results are relevance-ranked ('best match first') and the corpus is the World English Bible, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, or empty-match behavior.

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 with the core action and ranking rule front-loaded and no wasted preamble. The trailing 'Bible: daily readings, plans, search and passage lookup (World English Bible)' is a slightly garbled scope list rather than a clean sentence, which costs a point but not readability.

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 one-parameter ranked search whose annotations cover the full safety profile, the definition supplies corpus scope, ranking semantics and a documented query parameter. The only gap is return-shape guidance (how many hits, pagination), which is minor given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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%: the single 'q' parameter is documented in-schema with concrete examples ('forgiveness or shepherd'). The description adds no query syntax, phrase-quoting, or multi-word behavior beyond what the schema already provides, 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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource (search the curated readings) plus a ranking behavior (best match first), so an agent knows this retrieves ranked matches rather than an enumerated list. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like list_readings (unranked) or get_reading (single item fetch), which is exactly the confusion this tool type invites.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'search' plus 'best match first' tells the agent this is keyword lookup over readings, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no pointer to list_readings for browsing or get_reading for direct fetch. The agent must infer routing from the tool name alone.

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