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 is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return shape ('returns the verses with references') and the dual query mode, which an agent would not otherwise know from the annotations. It does not discuss ranking, ordering, or what happens when nothing matches.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by usage triggers. The sentence 'Returns the verses with references' is slightly redundant given the output schema exists, but it costs little and reads naturally.

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, so return values need not be detailed, and annotations cover safety semantics. For a three-parameter read-only search, the description covers purpose, triggers, and query modes adequately. Minor gaps remain around result count/limit behavior and what is returned when no verse matches.

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 every parameter, including the full translation list and default, is already documented in the schema. The description restates that 'query' accepts words, a phrase, or a reference, which is largely redundant with the schema's own text. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource scoped to a corpus: 'Search the Bible for verses containing words or a phrase.' The Bible/Scripture scope implicitly separates it from search_writings, and the reference-mode sentence ('A reference such as John 3:16 returns that passage') clarifies exactly what the tool does with each query type.

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?

Three concrete when-to-use triggers are given: the user remembers wording but not the reference, asks where the Bible mentions something, or wants verses on a topic. That is strong positive guidance. What is missing is the negative side — it never says when to prefer get_passage, lookup, or related_passages instead, and the reference-mode behavior overlaps get_passage without acknowledging the choice.

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