get_verse_with_study

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns and its source (wol.jw.org), which is helpful. However, it omits behavioral traits such as caching behavior (the 'fetch' parameter forces fresh data) and default field selection, which are important for setting user expectations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and clearly list the returned content. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or 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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a solid high-level overview, including the types of returned content and the ability to customize fields. However, it does not address important operational details like the default fields, the limit parameter's effect on list fields, or the meaning of fetch, though these are covered in the schema. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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%, and the schema itself provides detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds a verse range example and mentions field selection, which supplements but does not significantly exceed schema information. This aligns with the baseline score 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: 'Get Bible verse(s) with comprehensive study content', listing specific content types (verse text, study notes, cross-references, research articles, chapter outlines). This differentiates it from the simpler sibling tool get_bible_verse, which likely returns only verse 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_bible_verse. It implies use when comprehensive study content is needed, but lacks direct guidance such as 'for plain verse text, use get_bible_verse instead.' The usage context is implied through the feature list, not stated.

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