List Scholarly Commentaries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond mentioning 'Free Use Bible API' and output fields. No rate limits, pagination details, or other behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that cover purpose, examples, output fields, and API usage. 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?

Given the simple tool (one optional parameter, rich annotations, output schema exists), the description fully covers the necessary context. It tells what the tool does, what to expect, and refers to the API as free.

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 schema already documents the single optional 'limit' parameter completely (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter information, so it provides no additional value beyond the schema.

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 lists available scholarly Bible commentaries, names specific examples (Matthew Henry, JFB, Gill), and lists output fields (commentary ID, name, language). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bible.catalog.books and bible.catalog.translations by focusing on commentaries.

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 for when to use the tool (to list commentaries) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or compare with sibling tools. Given the high schema coverage and descriptive tool name, the agent can infer usage adequately.

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