KJV verse of the day

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's determinism claim largely restates idempotency, though it usefully pins the axis to the date. It says nothing about what the response contains (reference, text, translation metadata) or any rate/volume characteristics, so added value over annotations is modest.

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, no filler, with the core behavior front-loaded before the pool qualification. The parenthetical is a compact clarification rather than padding.

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, no-output-schema, fully annotated read tool, nearly everything an agent needs is present. The one omission is the shape of the return value (whether it includes the verse text and reference), which the agent must discover by calling.

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%, with `date` documented but `pool` left as bare enum values. The description compensates by explaining what each pool value selects (well-known encouraging verses vs. all 31,102 verses), which the enum alone does not convey. The date default is already in the schema, so no credit there.

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?

"Deterministic verse for a date" states a specific resource and the defining behavior in one clause, and the two pool modes clarify what kind of verse comes back. It doesn't name the sibling tools (get_passage, search_kjv, list_books) to say how it differs, but the daily-verse framing is distinct enough that an agent won't confuse it with a passage lookup or a search.

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?

Guidance is implicit: the pool semantics imply 'use popular for a general audience, all for exhaustive coverage.' There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention that this is the right tool when the user wants a single daily verse rather than a lookup by reference, and no exclusions relative to the siblings.

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