get_passage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool fetches a passage from a natural-language reference, consistent with annotations but not providing additional behavioral details beyond the safe read nature.

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, each earning its place. First sentence states action and examples, second sentence clarifies when to use. No superfluous 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?

For a tool with only 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and helpful annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description is complete. It explains the tool's role among siblings and handles input format adequately.

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% but description adds value by providing natural-language example inputs and explaining default behavior for the optional 'version' parameter. The 'reference' parameter description includes acceptable formats beyond the schema.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Fetches' with resource 'Bible passage', gives concrete examples, and explicitly distinguishes from structured-field tools. Sibling tools like get_chapter and get_verse further clarify scope.

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?

States this is 'the primary lookup tool when the user gives a citation', providing clear context for when to use it. Does not explicitly exclude other tools but implies the alternative (structured fields) and mentions other tools like search_bible exist.

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