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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that verses are aligned to English numbering despite differing Hebrew/Septuagint counts, but it does not describe output structure, error behavior, or limits for invalid edition ids.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the important alignment caveat. The edition list is dense but earns its place because it tells the agent what kind of editions are available.

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?

For a read-only passage retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, supported editions, side-by-side behavior, and verse-alignment caveat. It stops short of explaining the return structure or error handling, but is largely complete for correct invocation.

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 documents both parameters well. The description adds value by listing supported edition names, but it does not map those names to the exact edition ids expected by the schema, so it only modestly exceeds the baseline.

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: 'Read a Bible passage.' It further narrows scope with 'one or more editions side by side' and enumerates supported edition families, making it clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_editions or search_shelf.

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?

The description provides clear usage context: reading a Bible passage, optionally comparing multiple editions side by side. It does not explicitly name when to use this tool instead of siblings such as read_work or list_editions, and it gives no exclusions, so it falls short of a full 5.

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