get_bible_verse_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It does so by explaining that omitted verse returns the entire chapter, and that comma-separated verses 'will convert to range if contiguous.' This adds meaningful insight into tool behavior. It does not cover failure modes or edge cases, but for a simple URL generator, the disclosed behavior is adequate.

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 and well-structured, opening with the core purpose, then detailing supported verse formats and implementation notes. Every sentence adds information: the return type, the verse handling rules, the book number lookup reference, and the markdown use case. No fluff or redundancy.

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 (4 flat parameters, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: input formats, default behavior, and common use cases. It references search_bible_books for book numbers and aligns langwritten with sibling tools. It misses explicit differentiation from get_bible_verse (content vs. URL), but the purpose and use case already imply this distinction.

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 has 100% coverage of all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does add some interpretive value by explaining the comma-separated conversion and default language, but this largely repeats what the schema states. It also adds a pointer to search_bible_books, which is helpful but not a major semantic enhancement.

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 specifies the output (direct link) and distinguishes from sibling content tools like get_bible_verse that likely return scripture text. The examples and use case ('adding clickable scripture links') reinforce its unique role.

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 practical guidance on when to use the tool, such as 'Perfect for adding clickable scripture links to markdown documents.' It also directs users to search_bible_books for book numbers and notes the langwritten parameter matches other tools. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like get_bible_verse, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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