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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the underlying critical texts and the fact that the word explanations are authored in Norwegian and must be translated for the user — an important behavioral caveat that isn't in any structured field.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the one caveat an agent actually needs (Norwegian explanations). Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what comes back, the optional per-word expansion, the source editions, and the language caveat on explanations. Multi-reference and language-fallback mechanics are already covered by the schema, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 67%; the undocumented gap is word_by_word, and the description explicitly explains what that flag turns on ('word by word with an explanation of each word'), which is beyond what the schema offers. The language and reference parameters are already well described in the schema, so no further compensation is needed.

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 resource (the Hebrew or Greek source text of a passage) and names the textual basis (Leningrad Codex, SBLGNT), plus a word-by-word mode. It is clearly distinct from a translation-oriented sibling like get_passage, though that distinction is implied by the word 'original' rather than stated explicitly.

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 implied: reach for this when the user needs the source-language text rather than a translation, and enable word-by-word when per-word explanation is wanted. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not clause and no sibling (e.g. get_passage) is named, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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