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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and an output schema exists, so the safety and return-shape burden is largely lifted. The description adds that entries are returned 'translated into the requested language,' which is useful context, but says nothing about result limits, ranking of matches, or what happens on a miss.

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 sentences with the purpose and accepted input forms front-loaded, and the parenthetical examples earn their space by showing both scripts. The corpus counts (8,674 / 5,523) are mildly decorative but cheap.

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?

With a full schema, output schema, and rich annotations, the description supplies everything needed to select and call the tool. Only the lookup-mode interaction (number vs. word precedence, ambiguity handling) is left implicit.

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 every parameter (word, number, language, translation_language, limit) is documented in the schema itself, including the H/G prefix and bare-number rules. The description's mention of number-or-word lookup largely restates that; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('looks up a word in Strong's lexicon'), scoped with concrete corpus sizes and both accepted identifier forms, and clearly distinct from the passage/verse/commentary siblings. An agent knows exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

It states the selecting condition explicitly: 'Use it when the question is what an original-language word means.' That routes the agent well, but it names no alternative sibling (e.g. search_bible) for the adjacent case of finding where a word occurs.

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