get_bible_verse_url

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains supported verse formats and automatic range conversion for contiguous comma-separated verses. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid book numbers) or potential limitations like non-contiguous comma-separated verses not being converted.

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 concise: three sentences with efficient front-loading of purpose. It includes examples of supported formats without extraneous text.

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?

Given no output schema, the description states the return value ('direct link to view the scripture on jw.org'). For a simple URL-returning tool with 4 parameters and no nested objects, this is adequate. It covers the main use case, though could mention the URL's format or potential redirection.

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 description coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds value by detailing the verse parameter behavior (single, range, comma-separated) and noting conversion to range if contiguous, which is not in the schema's brief description.

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 purpose: 'Get the jw.org URL for a Bible verse or range of verses.' It uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'jw.org URL', and distinguishes from siblings like search_bible_books and get_bible_verse by implying it returns a link rather than text.

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 provides usage context: 'Perfect for adding clickable scripture links to markdown documents.' It also mentions search_bible_books for finding book numbers, offering a path for prerequisite steps. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like get_bible_verse.

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