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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real operational context beyond that: results include a citation, only one translation is returned per call, and the model should not rely on memory. It does not say how invalid or ambiguous references are handled, which is the remaining 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 action, followed by routing guidance. No filler, no restatement of the title, and every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return shape, and the sibling pointer plus single-translation rule cover the main ambiguity for a simple two-parameter read tool. It stops short of describing edge behavior such as unresolvable references or very long chapter requests.

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%, so the schema already defines both parameters and enumerates available translations. The description nonetheless adds a genuine constraint the schema does not express — 'one translation per call' — which shapes how the translation parameter must be used and points to compare_passage for the multi-translation case.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'Get the exact text of a Bible verse or passage, with its citation.' It also names the sibling it is not (compare_passage), so an agent can separate the two without reading either schema.

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?

Explicit trigger conditions are given ('whenever the user asks what a verse says, mentions a scripture reference, or wants a passage read'), along with a directive against quoting from memory and a concrete alternative ('for several side by side, use compare_passage'). When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the alternative are all present.

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