get_verse

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only states the inputs and not the output, required parameter combinations, or language default behavior. The mention of a 'full reference string' is ambiguous because no corresponding reference parameter exists in the schema, leaving the agent uncertain how that input mode is expressed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core operation and the two accepted input modes efficiently.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description omits which parameters are actually required to perform a retrieval and does not clarify the language default or response shape. The schema marks all parameters optional, so an agent still needs guidance on minimal valid calls; the description does not fully provide this.

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 book, chapter, verse, and language clearly. The description adds the full-reference-string concept, but this is not reflected as a schema parameter, so its added value is neutral at best and potentially confusing.

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 resource ('exact verse') and clearly identifies the inputs: book abbreviation, chapter, verse number, or a full reference string. This makes it distinct from sibling tools like get_chapter_context or get_parallel_verses, which target different retrieval scopes.

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 phrase 'Retrieve exact verse' clearly implies this tool is for precise reference-based lookups, not for searching or thematic exploration. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is reasonably clear from the description.

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