compare_passage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, indicating safe, idempotent behavior. The description adds transparency by specifying the output format (Markdown) and default version behavior. It is consistent with annotations and provides useful context.

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 very concise at three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description specifies the return format (Markdown comparison). It also distinguishes from 6 sibling tools. The tool's behavior is fully covered: what it does, when to use, parameter constraints, and result format. Complete for a comparison 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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds extra semantic info: for 'versions', it explains the default behavior (connection URL or small set) and the maximum of 8. This goes beyond the schema's description.

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 it compares the same Bible passage across multiple versions and returns a Markdown side-by-side comparison. It also explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool get_passage: 'For a single version, use get_passage.'

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 provides explicit use cases (translation comparison, sermon preparation, study questions) and clearly states when not to use it (single version -> get_passage). It also mentions the maximum of 8 versions, guiding proper usage.

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