bible_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the acceptable translation values, the default translation, and notes that KJV is preferred in Adventist study. It does not discuss behavior on invalid references or retrieval limits, but for a simple lookup tool the key behavioral details are clear.

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 core purpose, followed by a clearly structured Args section. Every clause contributes, including the Adventist context that helps explain why KJV is the default.

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 lookup tool, the description covers the essential invocation details: reference syntax, translation choices, and default behavior. The main gap is the absence of guidance differentiating it from bible_search, though this is partially offset by the clear 'by reference' wording. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is less necessary.

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 fully compensate, and it does: reference is clarified with three concrete formats, and translation is documented with allowed values and the default. This adds material meaning beyond the bare input 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?

The opening sentence 'Look up a Bible passage by reference' uses a specific verb and resource and clearly distinguishes it from the sibling bible_search tool, which would be for searching rather than direct reference lookup. The examples of references further cement the purpose.

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 provides per-argument usage details, such as examples of valid references and available translations, but it does not explicitly state when to choose bible_lookup over sibling tools like bible_search. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance for the tool as a whole.

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