get_interlinear_verse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals what data is returned but omits key behavioral details such as how the original language is selected per book (Old Testament vs New Testament), whether parallel_translation is always applied, and any limitations like unsupported books or missing morphology for certain texts.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and object, then efficiently lists the returned data elements without repetition or filler. Every phrase contributes useful information.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does list the content elements returned, which is helpful, but it does not describe the response envelope, the language-selection rule, or the meaning of the parallel_translation default. Given the simple parameter set, the description is minimally viable but leaves notable gaps for an agent deciding among many sibling Bible tools.

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 already documents all four parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific guidance, such as the valid format for 'parallel_translation' or how book names map to Hebrew versus Greek source texts.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieves'), a well-defined resource ('word-by-word original Hebrew (WLC) or Greek (NA28/LXX) interlinear text'), and enumerates the exact data elements returned (Strong's numbers, transliterations, lemmas, grammatical morphology). This clearly differentiates it from sibling verse retrieval tools like get_verse or get_parallel_verses, even without naming them explicitly.

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 when word-by-word original-language interlinear data is needed, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not contrast with related tools such as get_strongs_definition, analyze_greek_hebrew_word, or compare_translations_diff, so an agent must infer the appropriate selection context.

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