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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'line by line', which weakly hints at the return shape, and nothing about behaviour, limits, or error cases when the id is invalid.

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, but the second sentence is ambiguous boilerplate about 'search and passage lookup' that does not describe this tool and arguably belongs to a server description. The genuinely informative part is buried in a fragment.

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 parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description still fails to say what comes back beyond a vague 'line by line', and does not clarify the relationship to get_passage or get_today. For a tool whose whole job is retrieving a specific item by id, that leaves a real 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 the single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including that it accepts an id from /readings or a plan name like 'japji'. The description contributes nothing 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 phrasing 'One reading or plan, line by line' hints at fetching a single reading or plan as text, but it never names a verb like 'fetch' or 'retrieve' and gives no basis to distinguish it from siblings such as get_passage, get_today, or list_readings. The trailing 'Bible: daily readings, plans, search and passage lookup' reads like server-level metadata rather than 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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over get_passage, get_today, or list_readings, despite five closely related siblings. The reader is left to infer that 'id' points at a specific reading or plan, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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