bible_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains exact-phrase behavior, the translations accepted, the verse limit, and the optional book restriction. It does not explicitly declare read-only or no side effects, but the search verb inherently signals a non-mutating operation, making this adequate for the tool's risk profile.

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 one-line summary is front-loaded and followed by a compact Args block. Every line adds information; there is no filler or repetition of the schema's default values.

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 straightforward search tool with an output schema, this description is complete: all four parameters are semantically defined, the search behavior is explained, and the optional book restriction is illustrated. No critical information is missing 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully document the parameters, and it does. It explains the query format with double quotes, enumerates the four translations, gives the 1-100 limit range, and clarifies that book is an optional restrictor with an example.

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 opens with 'Full-text search the Bible for words or phrases,' which names a specific verb, resource, and mode of operation. This clearly separates it from the sibling bible_lookup, which implies reference-based lookup rather than full-text searching.

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 docstring gives detailed per-argument usage, including how to form an exact-phrase query and how to restrict by book, but it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over bible_lookup or the other search siblings. Usage is implied by the 'full-text search' wording rather than spelled out.

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