ask_holy_bible

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but it only makes aspirational claims and gives an invocation directive. It does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it draws on scripture, how it handles unsupported questions, or any side effects or limitations.

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 very short and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence and examples embedded. The heavy use of ALL CAPS and 'ALWAYS' is somewhat noisy but does not create significant bloat.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, nested objects, and a large sibling set, this description is not complete enough. It offers no guidance on parameter selection, no explanation of how the master mode relates to the specialized Bible lookup tools, and no indication of what a caller should expect in response.

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 9 parameters and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The tool has redundant-looking fields like question and userMessage, but the description does not clarify their relationship, so it stays at the baseline rather than adding value.

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 identifies the tool as the go-to for general, philosophical, ethical, and conceptual questions, with concrete examples ('що таке любов', 'чому люди страждають'). It distinguishes this from sibling search/verse tools by scope, though 'MASTER TOOL FOR ALL' is overstated and the exact action ('answer from the Bible?') is implied rather than stated.

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 an explicit routing rule: 'ALWAYS CALL THIS TOOL ON TURN 1' and lists the question categories it should handle. However, it provides no exclusions, no guidance on when to prefer sibling tools like search_keyword or get_verse, and the 'ALWAYS' instruction is too absolute to be reliable.

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