get_study_notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the content is published scholarship quoted as-is with source attribution, and it is a merged output from three named corpora.

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-loaded verb+resource sentence, then a compact bullet list of sources and one relevance sentence. The bulleted source list is mildly verbose but each entry earns its place by distinguishing the corpora.

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 lookup with no output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it explains content sources, scope, and use cases. Only the return shape/nesting of combined commentary is left implicit, which is minor given the annotations.

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 both reference and chapter_only are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of verse-level versus chapter-level overviews loosely corresponds to chapter_only but adds no syntax or default details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (Get) and resource (scholarly study notes and translation notes) scoped to a Bible verse or chapter, and enumerates the three distinct source corpora (Tyndale, UW, SIL) so the agent knows exactly what content comes back. This is meaningfully different from siblings like get_key_terms or get_ane_context.

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 'Relevant for...' sentence gives clear when-to-use conditions: published commentary on a specific verse, difficult passages, translation/cultural background, and chapter-level overviews. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it versus the many sibling context tools.

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