Search the text of Scripture

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description then adds valuable behavioral semantics: all words must appear in the same verse, double-quoted phrases require adjacency, results are ranked by how much of the verse matches, and short exact matches rank first. These are behavioral facts the schema and annotations cannot infer.

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 tightly written and front-loaded. Each sentence earns its place: the first defines scope, the second gives a concrete use case, and the remaining sentences explain query matching behavior and ranking. There is no wasted prose or repetition.

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?

Considering the output schema exists to describe return values and the input schema covers all parameters, the free-text description is sufficient for correct invocation. It tells the agent the corpus, the query syntax, ranking behavior, and the best conditions for limiting results. The only minor omission is explicit alternatives, which purpose and usage clarity largely handle anyway.

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 each parameter already has adequate documentation. The description adds meaningful query-level guidance beyond the parameter descriptions: same-verse matching, quoted-phrase behavior, and the ranking implication for short queries. It does not need to restate each parameter 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 defines a precise task: full-text search over the 31,102 verses of the Berean Standard Bible and frames it as the way to find a half-remembered passage. It is unambiguous about the resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as the generic 'search' or 'get_passage', so it falls just short of perfect sibling distinction.

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 strong usage context: 'This is how you find a passage you can half-remember but cannot cite' and gives actionable guidance to restrict by book or testament when a common word over-matches. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool in favor of alternatives, so there is a small gap in exclusions.

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