Search the KJV

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuinely new behavior: matching is case-insensitive, results are returned in canonical order, and the response includes a total match count plus a capped verse list — details not present in the 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the optional filter and return shape. No filler, no restatement of the tool name or title.

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?

With no output schema, the description should carry more of the result contract; it does describe count plus ordered verses, which is helpful. However, a four-parameter search tool leaves `whole_word` undefined and does not say what happens when matches exceed `limit` (truncation vs. error), so an agent could misuse the result set.

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 50%: 'query' and 'book' are documented in the schema, while 'limit' and 'whole_word' are not. The description partially compensates by clarifying that `limit` caps how many verses are returned ('up to `limit` verses'), but it says nothing about `whole_word`, whose exact-phrase/word-boundary effect is the least obvious parameter in the tool.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Find KJV verses containing a word or exact phrase') plus matching semantics (case-insensitive). It is clearly distinct from get_passage and list_books in kind, but never names a sibling or states the boundary explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Optional book filter' hints that narrowing by book is possible, and the phrase-search framing suggests keyword lookup rather than passage retrieval. There is no explicit instruction about when to prefer this over get_passage (e.g., 'use this to locate verses, then get_passage to read a full chapter'), so the agent must infer the routing.

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