get_passage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that this is a non-mutating read, what the response contains, or how a missing/malformed id is handled. Only the id format examples hint at behavior, which is not enough for a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded sentence that wastes no words and puts the essential constraint ('exact id') plus examples immediately after. Nothing extraneous.

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 (one required param, no nesting), and with no output schema the description arguably should describe the returned passage shape or failure behavior. It covers the input well enough to call, but leaves the agent guessing about errors and return content.

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 coverage is 0% — the schema declares only a bare string with no description. The description partially compensates by giving concrete id shapes ('Q 2:183', 'Bukhari 1'), which is genuinely useful format guidance. However, it does not explain id resolution rules, accepted prefixes, or case/whitespace tolerance, so the compensation is incomplete.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one passage by its exact id.' The word 'exact' implicitly contrasts with sibling search_corpus, so an agent can distinguish lookup-by-id from retrieval-by-query. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by its exact id' — use this when you already have an identifier rather than a query. But there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_corpus, nor any exclusion for invalid or partial ids. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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