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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds value by detailing what the tool returns: whether it matches a real verse, canonical KJV reference + text, a confidence score, and attribution correctness. This gives the agent a clear expectation of the tool's behavior beyond the generic read-only hint.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place. It avoids fluff while packing in the essential behavioral details and usage guidance.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description compensates by listing the key return elements (real verse match, KJV reference + text, confidence score, attribution correctness). The tool is simple (2 params, read-only), and the description covers the purpose, usage, and outputs thoroughly, making it complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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% for both parameters, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of the optional reference parameter ('if you pass a claimed reference — whether the attribution is correct') and by emphasizing that the quote is verified against real Scripture. This enhances the semantic understanding of the parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Verify whether a quote is real Scripture and cited correctly (anti-hallucination).' This uses a specific verb (verify) and resource (quote/Scripture), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_verse by focusing on verification rather than retrieval.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this before presenting any Bible quote to avoid misquotes/fabrications.' It also explains the conditional use of the reference parameter ('if you pass a claimed reference'). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear.

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