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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world call, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds substantive domain context about each edition's provenance (open translations vs. source texts), but says nothing about return shape, ordering, or size, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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 answer ('editions available, with language and licence') followed by enumerative detail. No filler, though the parenthetical edition-code catalogue is dense and could be formatted as a list for faster scanning.

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 parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description carries an appropriate load: it explains what the call yields and what each returned edition means. An agent has enough to call it and interpret results, though it lacks explicit routing to the tools that consume edition codes.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool whose description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 the resource clearly: 'The Bible editions available, with language and licence.' The verb is implied rather than stated ('List' appears only in the title), but the scope and return content are unambiguous. None of the sibling tools deal with editions, so differentiation is implicit through the noun alone.

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 only implied — an agent can infer this is a reference/lookup call to discover edition codes before using search_bible or get_passage, but the description never says so or names which sibling tools consume these codes. No when-not guidance is given, though a zero-parameter catalogue tool has little ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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