search_bible_books

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It explains that it searches English names/abbreviations and, with langwritten set, other languages' names/abbreviations. Examples show input/output behavior. It doesn't discuss ordering, limit, or error cases, but for a simple search tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 a single paragraph with 4 sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then provides language details and examples. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 simple search tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, why it's needed, and gives examples. It could be more explicit about the exact return format (book name and number) and edge cases, but it is adequate for an agent to select and use 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete query examples ('matt', '잠언') and clarifying the langwritten effect. It does not add detail about limit, but the schema already describes it.

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: 'Search for Bible books by name or abbreviation and get their book number (1-66)'. It also differentiates from siblings by noting that other scripture tools require the book number. Examples reinforce the purpose.

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 phrase 'which the other scripture tools require' gives strong context for when to use this tool: as a lookup step before using other scripture tools. Examples show usage patterns, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so not a full 5.

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