List Books in Translation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety and idempotency are clear. The description adds that it's a 'Free Use Bible API', which provides additional behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions. The description does not detail any other behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, caching).

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 convey the purpose, usage hint, and a note about API freedom. Every word adds value. It is front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary details.

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 (list all books for a translation) and the comprehensive annotations plus output schema, the description covers all essential information. It explains the relationship to bible.passage, which completes the context for an agent. No gaps are apparent.

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%, with thorough parameter documentation in the schema (e.g., example values and reference to bible.translations). The tool description reinforces the parameter usage with the example 'KJV → 66 books', but adds no new semantic information beyond 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 action (list books), the resource (specific Bible translation), and the output (book IDs and chapter counts). It also references a sibling tool (bible.passage), which helps distinguish its role in a workflow. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from other bible.* tools.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: as a prerequisite for bible.passage, and provides example translation IDs. It implicitly guides the agent to first discover translations via bible.translations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for commentary or full text).

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