lookup_verse

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

The description discloses that the tool provides actual verse text (not paraphrased), original language, word-by-word breakdown with Strong's numbers, and genre-specific interpretation. It also instructs the AI to display original language in responses. Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. This adds contextual behavior beyond 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 front-loaded with a bold instruction, then uses bullet points for clarity, and ends with a concrete example. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds necessary guidance. The structure is logical and efficient.

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 simplicity and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (verse text, original language, word breakdown, Strong's numbers, genre guidance). It covers all necessary context for an AI agent to use it correctly and leverage its output effectively.

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 all three parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds context: it clarifies that include_original defaults to true and that include_morphology provides grammatical parsing. It also gives example reference formats. This adds moderate value beyond the schema alone, justifying a score above baseline 3.

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 that this tool is for looking up Bible verses and provides the actual verse text, original Greek/Hebrew, word breakdown, and genre insights. It explicitly says 'ALWAYS USE THIS when any Bible verse is mentioned,' making the purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on cross-references, word studies, etc.

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 gives a strong usage guideline: 'ALWAYS USE THIS when any Bible verse is mentioned or relevant.' It also advises using it even if the AI can quote from memory, ensuring accurate text. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for specific needs.

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