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

Despite no annotations, the description is exceptionally transparent: it discloses known recall gaps, states that empty results do NOT mean the verse is uncited, and reveals the extraction source (translators' footnotes, tier 1). It even explains that verbatim quotations are regularly missed by the footnote index. This fully carries the behavioral-disclosure burden in the absence of annotations.

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?

Tightly written with zero waste — the purpose statement, complementary-tool contrast, and coverage caveat are each one focused sentence. The coverage note is clearly delimited and earns its place given its operational importance for the agent.

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 2-parameter lookup with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, interpretation of results, limitations, and alternative strategies. The coverage caveat is critical context that directly affects how an agent should interpret tool output, and it is addressed head-on. Very complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter-meaning load. It provides a concrete example of the reference format ('Ephesians 5:21') and explains what the reference means in this context. The limit parameter is not explicitly described, but the high-clarity usage context partially compensates. Slightly above the baseline 3 given the useful reference-format example.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Where a Bible verse is cited by name in the patristic corpus, extracted from the translators' own footnotes'), gives a concrete example (reference='Ephesians 5:21'), and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling get_cross_references. Purpose is unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly contrasts with get_cross_references ('links scripture to scripture; this links patristic text to scripture') and offers a clear alternative — full-text search — when footnote extraction returns empty. Also warns about recall gaps and tells the agent when to fall back to search. Very strong when/when-not guidance.

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