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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It goes beyond a simple 'gets tables' by noting that disputes are preserved (e.g., a cubit's two lengths), that references are verified against the corpus, and that names of God include Strong's numbers that link to word_study. These are non-obvious behavioral traits that help the agent set expectations about the data's nature and cross-tool dependencies.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and compactly listing the tables. It packs significant detail into a small space, but the first sentence is slightly dense with parentheticals and semicolon-separated clauses, which could be clearer. Still, every part earns its place.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential behaviors: the data source, the effect of the parameter, and the cross-link to word_study. It does not describe the internal structure of each table or the exact format of the index, but for a reference table retrieval tool, the description is sufficiently complete to guide correct invocation and expectation setting.

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 provides no description for the single 'table' parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so effectively: it explains that passing a table returns that table, while omitting it returns an index of all six. It also implicitly lists valid table names via the enumeration in the first sentence, giving the agent concrete values to use.

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 explicitly states that the tool provides 'Back-matter reference tables' and enumerates the six specific tables (weights_measures, names_of_god, etc.), making the tool's resource and scope unambiguous. It also clarifies the core behavior: pass a table to retrieve it, or omit to get an index. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like word_study or cross_references by focusing on back-matter reference data.

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 gives clear usage instructions for the optional parameter: 'Pass table for one table; else the index of all six.' This tells the agent how to invoke the tool for different purposes. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the niche subject matter and clear parameter guidance make the intended use implicit.

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