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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description wisely spends its budget on behavior instead: single verses carry study links, and Apocrypha/Non-Canonical results add canon_status and disclaimer_url. '[no key]' also signals no authentication is required. Only pagination/error behavior is unaddressed.

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 output (King James text for a reference) and then enumerates the include options compactly. Every sentence carries information; the dense enumeration is justified by the six enum values it documents.

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-structure explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover safety. The description adds the key behavioral facts (study links, canon_status/disclaimer_url, no key) but omits reference syntax guidance, which is the main practical gap for 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does so well for the include enum, explaining exactly what greek, hebrew, parallels, study_links, cross_refs, and connections each return. It is lighter on the required reference parameter, giving only 'free-form reference' without format examples.

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 and resource (verse retrieval) plus the text basis (King James) and shelf scope (Bible, Apocrypha, Non-Canonical). It is clear what the tool returns, though it never contrasts itself with the very similar sibling get_bible_passage, leaving some ambiguity about which to pick.

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?

Usage is implied by 'free-form reference' and the description of what each include option yields, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not and no routing to alternatives such as get_bible_passage, compare_translations, or get_cross_references.

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