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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds genuine behavior: results come side by side per edition and include a chapter URL, and include_notes enumerates the kinds of scholarly content returned.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core return behavior and then the optional-flag guidance. Nothing wasted and nothing buried.

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 no output schema, the description adequately sketches the return value (text per edition, chapter link, optional footnotes). It is a read-only tool with annotations carrying the safety profile, so coverage is strong, though error/fallback behavior for invalid references is left implicit.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by enumerating what include_notes actually contains (translation choices, Greek/Hebrew linguistics, textual criticism, history, theology), which meaningfully expands on the schema's terse one-liner.

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?

A specific verb and resource: it returns passage text, side by side across editions, plus a chapter link. The side-by-side framing implicitly separates it from get_original_text and get_chapter_study, but no sibling is named, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 gives one conditional hint — use include_notes for footnotes — but never says when to pick this tool over search_bible, get_chapter_study, or get_original_text. Usage is implied by the purpose rather than stated.

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