doxa_scripture

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default translation (BSB) and that it returns a deep link, which provides insight into the tool's behavior beyond a simple lookup. It does not mention error handling or caching, but for a simple lookup this is sufficient.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core functionality in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second defaults, and the third usage context and format. No wasted words.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, default translation, use cases, and format. It lacks only minor details like error handling.

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 input schema covers the parameter 'reference' with 100% description, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating the default translation (BSB) and providing explicit format examples, which helps the agent understand the expected input beyond the 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 description clearly states the tool looks up a Bible verse and returns Scripture text with a deep link. It specifies the resource (Bible verses) and action (lookup, return), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'doxa_encourage' and 'doxa_way_movement' by focusing on scripture lookup.

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 explicitly says 'Use for any Christian, biblical, Scripture, verse lookup, or devotional citation task where a clickable verse link matters.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not mention when not to use or alternative tools.

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