get_verse_with_study

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions the ability to force fresh data via the fetch parameter, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, caching behavior, or prerequisites. Basic transparency is present but incomplete.

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—two sentences covering purpose, supported ranges, return content, and customization. No unnecessary words or redundant information.

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?

While the description explains what fields are returned, it does not describe output structure or pagination. Given the complexity (7 parameters, many siblings) and absence of output schema, slightly more detail would be ideal, but the core functionality is captured.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value: it reinforces field selection and gives a verse range example, but these are also present in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves Bible verses with comprehensive study content from wol.jw.org, specifying the return of verse text, study notes, cross-references, and more. It distinguishes itself from simpler tools like get_bible_verse by emphasizing study content and customization via field selection.

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 for comprehensive study (versus simpler verse lookup) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_bible_verse or search_wol_library. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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