fetch_translation_questions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the two input modes but leaves critical ambiguities: what happens if both reference and filter are given, what happens when no parameters are supplied (since all are optional), and what the return structure looks like. These omissions limit transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and clearly contrasts the two usage modes. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool has 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief to be considered complete. It fails to explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, ambiguity when both reference and filter are used, or the shape of the returned data, leaving an AI agent under-informed for proper 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?

The schema already covers 67% of parameters with descriptions for filter, search, reference, and testament. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between reference (specific Bible reference) and filter (search across all questions), but it does not clarify the remaining undocumented parameters like language and organization. Baseline for moderate coverage is 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' with the clear resource 'translation questions', and explicitly defines two modes: fetching by Bible reference or searching via the filter param. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fetch_translation_notes and fetch_translation_word, which target different resource types.

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 clearly indicates the two primary use cases: retrieving questions for a specific Bible reference, or using the filter param to search across all questions. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, such as when to prefer fetch_translation_notes over this tool.

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