get_scripture

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavior. It states returns 'scripture text and reference' and provides valid reference formats. It does not mention the translation default or error handling, but for a simple read tool this is acceptable.

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 compact: two sentences that front-load the action and immediately give examples. No redundant or unnecessary wording.

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 a simple two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is adequate. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool over search_content, and it doesn't explain translation parameter defaults or behavior, making it a minimum-viable description.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds an example for the reference parameter but adds no extra context for translation codes, relying on the schema's 'Bible translation code' description.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get scripture text by reference' with concrete examples ('John 3:16'). It distinguishes from siblings like search_content and get_article by targeting specific scripture references.

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: use when you have a direct scripture reference. However, no explicit when-not or alternative guidance is provided, and sibling tools are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from names.

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