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

Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds the return behavior ('Returns the full verse record or null'), which is beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful additional context about the output.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the low complexity of a single verse fetch and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: how to identify the verse and what to expect in return (full record or null). It is not comprehensive (e.g., no error behavior), but it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that gid is a global id and that ayaId/suraId are used as a pair. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema. However, it does not clarify mutual exclusivity or validation details, so it is not perfect.

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 clearly states 'Fetch a single verse' with a specific verb and resource, and specifies two identification methods. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_verses_by_range (plural) and get_verse_morphology (morphology). High clarity and differentiation.

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 implies usage for single verse lookup but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It says 'by global id or by (suraId, ayaId)', which indicates the main use case, but there is no explicit guidance on choosing this over get_verses_by_range for multiple verses. Guidance is implied but not stated.

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