get_verse_with_study

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the source ('wol.jw.org') and that it 'Returns verse text, study notes...', but does not disclose critical behaviors such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or pagination for large verse ranges. The 'fetch' parameter hint about 'fresh data' is useful but insufficient for comprehensive transparency.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, the second details the return content and customization. It is front-loaded with key information and avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the field examples into the first sentence.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose, return content, and parameter customization, but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., rate limits, errors) and does not fully compensate for the missing output schema by describing the response structure. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 marginal value by mentioning 'single verses or ranges' for the 'verse' parameter and 'customize what content is returned' for 'fields', but does not provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples beyond what the schema specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Bible verse(s) with comprehensive study content'), resource ('from wol.jw.org'), and scope ('single verses or ranges'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_bible_verse' by emphasizing comprehensive study content including notes, articles, and cross-references, not just verse text.

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 implies usage for retrieving enriched Bible content with study materials, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_bible_verse' (which likely returns only verse text) or 'search_bible_books' (for finding book numbers). It mentions field selection for customization but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection scenarios.

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