Get KJV verse or passage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that — the KJV 1769 edition/public-domain provenance and the 200-verse cap per call. It does not describe the shape of the returned text (verse numbering, how italics surface), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by accepted input forms and the size limit. Every clause carries usable information — the examples of supported reference syntax are the most valuable part and are not buried.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers format acceptance, size limits, and edition provenance well. What is missing is any hint about the return payload — whether verse numbers or reference labels are included — which would matter for a caller assembling output from multiple references.

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, but the description adds real meaning about the 'reference' parameter: accepted forms for single verses, ranges ('Gen 1:31-2:3'), whole chapters, multi-reference ';' separation, and working abbreviations (Jn, Ps, 1 Cor). It says nothing about the 'italics' enum, though the schema documents it fully, so the gap is minor.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Look up King James Version (1769, public domain) text by reference,' which makes it clear this is a reference-based text retrieval tool. The phrase 'by reference' implicitly contrasts with keyword search (search_kjv), but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is left partly to inference.

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?

Gives clear context for use: pass a reference string in any of several accepted forms, with a hard limit of 'Max 200 verses per call' that tells the agent when to split requests. It never states when to prefer search_kjv or verse_of_the_day instead, so there are no explicit exclusions.

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