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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The only behavioral detail added is the default translation pair (KJV and WEB), which the input schema already states in the translations parameter description, so the description contributes little beyond structured data.

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 action before the usage triggers. No filler, hedging, or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations are rich, so return values and safety need no explanation here. The description covers purpose, defaults, and usage triggers adequately; a pointer to the list_translations sibling for valid translation codes would close the last gap.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including accepted reference formats and example translation codes. The description's mention of defaults merely repeats the schema rather than adding syntax, constraints, or edge-case meaning.

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 and resource ('Show one Bible passage side by side in several translations') and the scope of what is returned. The phrase 'side by side in several translations' distinguishes it from the single-translation sibling get_passage without needing to name it.

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?

Gives three concrete triggering scenarios: asking how versions differ, wanting a verse in one version next to another, or comparing Catholic/Jewish/Protestant renderings. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g. 'use get_passage for a single translation'), so routing is clear but not fully disambiguated.

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