get_scripture

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'returns the scripture text and reference,' but does not mention error behavior (e.g., invalid reference), handling of the optional translation parameter, or any other side effects. This is minimal transparency.

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?

The description is two sentences, immediately states the main action, and includes useful examples without any filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, input examples, and return value. It is not missing critical information, though it could optionally mention what happens for invalid references or how the translation parameter affects output. This is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), and the description adds valuable context by giving examples of the reference format. It also clarifies that the return value includes both text and reference, which helps understand the translation parameter's role. This exceeds the baseline of 3.

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's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('scripture text'), and provides concrete examples of valid references. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_content, which would be used for searching rather than direct reference 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?

The description implies usage (when you have a specific scripture reference), but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any exclusions. It would be improved by noting that search_content is for searching/finding references, while this tool is for retrieving text by a known reference.

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