search_bible

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds information about the output format (Markdown) and the nature of matching (case-insensitive, accent-insensitive). It does not disclose other behaviors like rate limits, but the safety profile is covered 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?

Two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states purpose and output format; the second gives usage guidance and sibling differentiation. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Considering the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining purpose and usage guidance. It could be more specific about what a verse reference includes (e.g., book chapter:verse), but sibling tools and schema descriptions round out the context.

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 schema already describes all parameters. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond saying 'keyword or exact phrase' which is already in the query description. Baseline 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 searches for a keyword or exact phrase in one Bible version and returns matching verse references in Markdown. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_passage and get_verse by specifying it is for discovery, not direct citation lookup.

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 provides when to use: 'Use this for discovery questions like...' and when not to: 'For direct citation lookup, use get_passage or get_verse.' This gives clear guidance on alternatives.

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