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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral context: it discloses that disputes are carried, refs are corpus-verified, and names of God link into word_study. It does not confirm read-only nature, response size/format, or any limits (the schema's maxLength is the only size hint).

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the bracketed tag, then the table list, then behavioral notes, then the parameter rule. Every clause earns its place, though the telegraphic style is slightly terse.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, it covers the resource, the valid table values, the default behavior, and data-quality notes. Return shape is not described, which is the main remaining gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates the valid values for the undocumented 'table' parameter and specifies the default behavior when it is omitted (returns index of all six). This adds meaning well beyond the bare string schema, though no format expectations are stated.

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 resource (back-matter reference tables) and enumerates all six tables it serves (weights_measures, names_of_god, parables, miracles, book_intros, topical_index). The reference to word_study for names of God's Strong's numbers helps distinguish it from that sibling.

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?

"Pass table for one table; else the index of all six" gives clear conditional usage for the parameter, but nothing about when to reach for this tool versus commentary, tsk_cross_references, or canon. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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