get_study_notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the sources (Tyndale, UW Translation, SIL Translator notes) and stating it provides published peer-reviewed scholarship, which sets appropriate expectations for output quality. No contradictions with 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 concise (8 lines) and immediately front-loads the main purpose in the first sentence. It uses clear bullet lists for sources and usage scenarios, and the final line qualifies the content as peer-reviewed. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 complexity of a tool combining three source types and two parameters, the description covers what is returned, when to use it, and the scholarly nature. It could be improved by clarifying whether the output is a merged list or separate sections, but overall it is sufficiently complete for effective use.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description does not add new syntactic or format details beyond what the schema provides. The usage guidelines indirectly imply chapter_only usage by mentioning chapter-level overview, but this doesn't improve semantic clarity 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 returns scholarly study notes and translation notes for a Bible verse or chapter, naming three specific sources and emphasizing peer-reviewed scholarship. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lookup_verse or word_study.

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 includes a bullet list 'USE THIS when you need:' that explicitly covers four use cases (scholarly commentary, explanations, translation/cultural notes, chapter overview). While it doesn't name alternative tools, the listed scenarios provide clear guidance on when to invoke this tool.

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