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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations lack: the result is organized per verse and each entry carries a short explanatory note, which shapes how an agent should present it.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: what you get comes first, the follow-up action second. The parenthetical earns its place as an invocation hint, though the sentence boundary between the two ideas is slightly awkward.

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, but the description conveys the essential return shape (related passages keyed to each verse, each with a note), and language/format details live in the schema. Sufficient for an agent to call and use the result.

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 reference format examples, semicolon multi-reference syntax, and language fallback are all already documented in the schema. The description's ';' tip restates the schema rather than adding new 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?

States the resource precisely: related passages for each verse of a passage, plus a note explaining the relation. This distinguishes it from get_passage (which retrieves the actual text) and from the search_* siblings, though the verb 'get' is carried only by the tool name.

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?

Gives a concrete follow-up workflow: fetch the returned references with get_passage, batching several in one call with ';'. It never states when to prefer this over siblings like get_chapter_study or search_bible, so the choice is left to inference.

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