beliefs_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does convey the core behavior: returning the full official text of a fundamental belief, which signals a read-only retrieval operation. However, it does not disclose edge-case behavior such as handling of invalid numbers, ambiguous topics, case sensitivity, or whether topic matching is exact or fuzzy.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanation is immediately useful and free of filler. Every sentence contributes to understanding how to invoke the tool, achieving maximum clarity in minimal space.

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 simple one-parameter getter, the description is largely complete: it states what the tool returns and how to specify the input. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return formatting. Minor gaps remain around topic-matching behavior and when to prefer sibling tools, but the core invocation context is well covered.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively for the only parameter: it specifies the valid range (numbers 1-28) and provides concrete examples ('sabbath', 'state of the dead', 'second coming'). This adds meaningful guidance beyond the bare string type in the schema, though it leaves out details like case sensitivity or formatting.

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 identifies the operation with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full official text of a Fundamental Belief.' This distinguishes it from a search or list operation. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like beliefs_search or bible_lookup, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: the description indicates this tool retrieves a specific belief by number or topic, which suggests when to use it. But it does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as beliefs_search for finding beliefs by keyword. The context of the single parameter creates a reasonable inference, but no explicit routing guidance is present.

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