get_verse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the operation is a retrieval ('Get') and discloses return contents ('includes Sanskrit, transliteration, and navigation links'). This is sufficient for a simple read tool, though it does not mention error behavior for invalid paths.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is in the first sentence, and the second provides useful return detail. Every word contributes.

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 2-parameter getter with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description reasonably covers purpose and return contents. It could mention what happens when the path is invalid or that lang defaults to Spanish, but the schema already documents the default, so nothing critical is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented with examples and enums. The description adds no further meaning to the parameters beyond reinforcing that 'href' is a path to a verse, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a specific verse by its path') and the return scope ('Sanskrit, transliteration, and navigation links'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_random_verse and search_verses, which operate by different selection criteria.

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 conveys clear context: use this when you have an exact verse path. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the path-based targeting is enough for an agent to select this over the search or random variants.

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