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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the default translation (BSB, public domain) and that a deep link is returned, both of which matter for output interpretation.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage context, then format guidance. The usage sentence is slightly listy but each clause earns its place by aiding routing.

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 tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, default behavior, return shape, and accepted input format. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 there is only one parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by showing the accepted reference format including a range example ('Psalm 23:1-3'), which the schema's single example does not cover.

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 (look up), resource (Bible verse), and the return value (Scripture text plus a deep link to its Doxa Bible page). An agent can immediately tell this apart from a generic search or encouragement tool.

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?

It gives a clear usage context ('any Christian, biblical, Scripture, verse lookup, or devotional citation task where a clickable verse link matters'), which is stronger than implied usage. However, it never names or contrasts with the siblings (doxa_encourage, doxa_way_movement), so the agent must infer routing on its own.

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