get_bible_verse_url

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 key behavioral traits: it returns a direct link, supports various verse formats (single, range, comma-separated), and converts contiguous comma-separated verses to ranges. However, it doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose. Each subsequent sentence adds useful context without waste, such as usage examples, sibling tool reference, and practical application. No redundant or verbose phrasing is present.

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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and behavioral aspects well. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., URL structure) and error cases, which could be helpful since there's no output schema. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by briefly mentioning verse formats and the optional nature of 'verse', but it doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Get the jw.org URL for a Bible verse or range of verses') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying it returns a direct link, unlike tools like 'get_bible_verse' or 'get_verse_with_study' which likely return content. It explicitly mentions the resource (Bible verses on jw.org) and verb (get URL).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Perfect for adding clickable scripture links to markdown documents') and when to use alternatives ('Use search_bible_books to find book numbers'). It clearly differentiates from siblings by focusing on URL generation rather than content retrieval or search.

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