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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: the read is verbatim KJV from a stored corpus, `around` defaults to 3 and caps at 10, and it crosses chapter boundaries within the same book. It doesn't discuss auth or rate limits, but for a read-only lookup that is minor.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then layers in default/limit behavior and sample queries. The example-question list is slightly long but earns its place by anchoring usage; nothing is redundant.

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, yet the description still succinctly previews the return shape (passage, surrounding verses, evidence label with translation, canon, corpus version, hashes). Combined with annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: that `around` verses are read both before and after and that they cross into adjacent chapters of the same book. The `reference` parameter is illustrated with example formats, reinforcing the schema.

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 (read) and resource (a verse or short passage with surrounding verses), plus the distinguishing scope: verbatim KJV with surrounding context so a verse is never quoted out of place. This separates it from siblings like scripture_passage or scripture_search even without naming them.

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 explicit user-question triggers ("what is the context of Jeremiah 29:11", "read Philippians 4:13 in context"), which clearly signals when to reach for this tool. It stops short of naming alternative siblings or stating when NOT to use it, so it is strong context without explicit exclusions.

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