get_bible_verse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important and non-obvious behavior: poetic books are stored as separate lines and are joined here, ensuring complete verses. It also specifies the translation and source. It does not mention return format or error conditions, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 three sentences long, each earning its place: purpose, a specific behavioral nuance, and an alternative-tool pointer. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids any filler.

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 the tool's simplicity, the rich schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the source, translation, the special line-joining behavior, and the alternative for study notes. There are no significant gaps that would impair an agent's ability to select and invoke the tool.

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 100% coverage of all four parameters, including descriptions and examples for book numbers and language codes. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics, so the 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 identifies the tool's function: retrieving plain Bible verse text from a specific source (wol.jw.org, NWT Study Edition). It distinguishes itself from sibling get_verse_with_study by explicitly stating it returns plain text, not study notes.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use this tool for plain verse text, and use get_verse_with_study for study notes and cross-references. This directly addresses when to use the tool versus its main alternative.

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