get_parallel_verses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the tool is a read operation ('Retrieves') and mentions translation limits, but it does not disclose what is returned, how alignment is handled, whether defaults apply, or any ordering/pagination behavior.

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?

A single, grammatically complete sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. Every word contributes: the verb, the resource type, the alignment feature, the translation limit, and the language set. No filler or 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps: no return format, no mention of default translations, no guidance on end_verse behavior, and no clarification of how 'aligned parallel' differs from sibling tools. An agent would need to inspect schemas or invoke the tool to understand expected outcomes.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value for the translations parameter by specifying a maximum and example languages, but it does not elaborate on book, chapter, verse, or end_verse semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Retrieves'), a clear resource ('aligned parallel scripture text'), and a concrete scope ('across up to 15 translations'). It clearly states what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from similar siblings like compare_translations_diff or get_interlinear_verse.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 27 siblings including several scripture-text retrieval tools, the description offers no selection criteria, exclusions, or context hints, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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