translation_notes

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds licensing (CC BY-SA) and content-boundary context, but says nothing about output volume, truncation via max_chars, or what a missing passage yields.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the resource and its scope front-loaded and the sibling pointer at the end. Every clause carries 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?

The content semantics are well covered and annotations handle safety, but with 0% parameter documentation and no output schema, an agent still lacks guidance on reference syntax, what max_chars truncates, and what include_intros adds.

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 0% across three parameters, and the description never mentions any of them. The 'on a passage' phrasing hints that ref is a passage reference but gives no format, and max_chars and include_intros are entirely undocumented anywhere.

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 the specific resource (unfoldingWord Translation Notes), its scope (per Greek/Hebrew phrase, translation and lexical issues) and explicitly excludes doctrinal commentary, which separates it from the commentary sibling. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes key-term article lookups to the dictionary tool and implicitly steers doctrinal material to commentary via the 'not doctrinal commentary' clause. It does not state a positive 'use this when' condition or prerequisites (e.g. reference format), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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