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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output concept ('every verse') but does not mention pagination, sorting, handling of multiple Strong's numbers (though the example implies it), or the format of returned verses. No safety or side-effect information is given.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical '(the concordance)' adds useful conceptual framing without extra verbosity.

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 lack of an output schema and minimal description, the tool is under-specified. It does not explain what the returned data looks like (e.g., a list of references, chunking behavior, or whether multiple Strong's numbers are processed as a union or intersection). This is incomplete even for a simple parameter tool.

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 input schema already documents the only parameter 'strongs' with an example ('G26, H2617'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly defines the tool's function: returning every verse for a given Strong's word, referencing 'concordance'. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'word_study' and 'original_words', though it lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'retrieves'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'word_study' or 'cross_references'. The description merely defines what it does without stating use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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