topic_verses

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond these hints: it mentions that 'See X' redirects are followed and labeled, that the tool returns the true total along with up to limit verses, and that ambiguous names produce a candidate list. This goes beyond the safety profile provided by annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded. Four sentences each serve a distinct purpose: stating the core function with examples, giving usage guidance with an alternative, explaining the ambiguity handling, and describing output limits and tagging format. No wasted words.

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?

Combined with rich annotations (read-only, idempotent) and an existing output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers when to use, when not to, behavior for ambiguous names, redirect handling, limit semantics, and output formatting, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, with each parameter (topic, limit, include_text) already well documented. The tool description reinforces the default limit and candidate-id behavior but does not add substantial new semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool looks up a subject in Nave's Topical Bible and returns its verses, with concrete examples ('faith', 'care', 'prayer'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from search_by_meaning by noting it returns the editor's chosen verses rather than a similarity search, which differentiates it from siblings.

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 specifies when to use this tool ('what does the Bible say about X?' for classic study subjects) and when not to, directing users to search_by_meaning for non-index phrasings like 'feeling overwhelmed at work'. It also explains the flow for ambiguous topics, telling the agent to call again with a listed id.

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