lookup_verse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds value by detailing the return payload (original language, morphology, Strong's numbers, genre background) and noting availability of related data, but it doesn't disclose caching, rate limits, or errors. With annotations covering the safety profile, the extra return-context is useful but not exhaustive.

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 action and uses a bulleted returns section for scannability. It is slightly longer than necessary due to the detailed list, but every item is informative. No wasted fluff.

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?

Given no output schema and a simple read tool, the description provides a thorough description of what is returned, including optional and conditional data. It covers the main use cases. A minor gap is that it doesn't explain what happens with invalid references or how to interpret the availability notes for cross-references, but overall it is complete enough 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description goes beyond by providing concrete reference format examples ('John 3:16', 'Gen 1:1', 'Romans 3:21-26') and notes that include_original is on by default, which reinforces the schema defaults. This adds practical example detail beyond the schema.

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 (look up) and resource (Bible verse/verse range) and enumerates the scope of content returned, including original-language text and word-level breakdown. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_cross_references or word_study, which serve different functions.

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 final sentence gives a clear usage trigger: 'Relevant whenever the verified wording of a passage, or its original-language form, is needed.' It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool or when NOT to use this, but the context is clear enough to route correctly.

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