get_commentary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieve' indicates a read operation, and the named authors give a sense of content scope. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as result format, whether multiple commentaries are returned, or limitations like coverage gaps.

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?

One sentence with no padding, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word contributes to meaning.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with three clear parameters, the core function is stated. However, with no output schema, the description does not explain what the returned commentary data looks like (e.g., plain text, structured objects, multiple authors), leaving some uncertainty for the agent.

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 schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, though minimal. The description adds the context that parameters refer to biblical passages for commentary retrieval, but it does not elaborate on accepted book abbreviations or how verse/chapter are interpreted. This meets the baseline but adds little 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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and names a concrete resource ('patristic and classic historical commentaries') with example authors. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_verse or get_cross_references, which target different content types.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state conditions such as 'use when you need historical interpretations' or exclude tools like search_topic or get_chapter_context. The use case is only implied by the resource name.

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