random_verse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no safety concerns. The description adds valuable behavioral details: each call returns a different verse, the response is tagged with 'Book Chapter:Verse (TRANSLATION)', and contradictory filters produce a 'no verse matches' message. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it stops short of exhaustive 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by filtering options and return behavior. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given an output schema exists and the tool has only three optional parameters, the description fully covers use cases, filtering, randomness, and error handling. It is complete for the complexity of the tool.

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 100% so the baseline is 3. The description enhances the schema by giving concrete examples ('John', 'PSA'), clarifying the default translation (KJV), and explaining the contradiction behavior when book and testament conflict. This adds meaningful context not present in the property descriptions alone.

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 begins with 'Fetch one random verse' — a clear verb+resource combination. It lists concrete use cases (verse of the day, writing prompt, sampling a book's voice) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lookup_verse and search_by_meaning by emphasizing randomness.

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 directly states when to use the tool (verse of the day, writing prompt, sampling a book's voice) and explains the optional filtering options. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or give 'when not to use' guidance, which would push it to a 5, but the context is clear.

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