fetch_translation_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Fetch' (implying read-only) and describes two lookup modes, but does not explain the output format differences, default markdown behavior, or any limitations. The description adds minimal context beyond what the tool name already suggests.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that states the core purpose and an alternative usage mode. Every word contributes meaning, and the filter parameter is mentioned to clarify a non-obvious usage.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is functional but sparse. It relies heavily on the schema to convey parameter details and does not mention output formats or default values, which are important for a fetch tool. The description is adequate for straightforward use but lacks depth for edge cases.

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 71%, with good descriptions for filter, format, search, reference, and testament, but language and organization are undocumented. The description highlights the filter parameter's role in searching, aligning with the schema, but does not compensate for the missing parameter descriptions. Overall, the schema does most of the heavy lifting.

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 fetches translation notes, either for a specific Bible reference or via a filter search across all notes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fetch_translation_questions and fetch_translation_word by naming the resource type and its unique search mode.

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 implies two usage modes (reference lookup or filter search) but does not explicitly mention which sibling tool to use instead for other resource types. The context is evident from the tool name, but there are no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance.

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