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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds useful substance beyond them, namely the underlying textual editions returned, but says nothing about scope limits, coverage of editions, or cost of range requests, which matters for a verse-by-verse tool.

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 what is returned before the usage triggers, with no filler. Every clause (word by word, parsing, Strong's numbers, editions) carries information an 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 values, and annotations already carry the safety profile. What remains, the original-language content, its source editions, and the situations that call for it, is fully covered for a one-parameter read tool.

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 the single reference parameter is fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little syntax guidance and actually narrows scope to 'one Bible verse', while the schema explicitly permits ranges and whole chapters, leaving a small ambiguity about accepted reference width.

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 a specific verb and resource: showing the original Hebrew or Greek behind a verse, word by word, with parsing and Strong's numbers, and names the exact source editions (Hebrew Bible, Westcott-Hort, SBLGNT). That is clearly different from a plain passage fetch such as get_passage and from a single-word lexical tool such as lookup_word.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use triggers: questions about a word's original-language meaning, Greek or Hebrew grammar, or why translations of a verse differ. What it lacks is an explicit when-not or a named alternative ('use get_passage for the English text'), so routing is clear but not fully closed.

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