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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return content (definition, pronunciation, every occurrence), which implies a read-only lookup, but it says nothing about result size limits, pagination, or whether occurrences are capped, which matters for a tool promising 'every occurrence'.

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?

A single compact line with the core purpose front-loaded after a short tag. The '[WORD · door]' prefix is somewhat cryptic but consumes little space, and no sentence is wasted.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately states the three things returned (definition, pronunciation, occurrences). It is close to complete; only edge-case behavior such as missing Strong's numbers or occurrence limits is unaddressed.

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?

There is one required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the example format 'G26, H2617'. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting and 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?

The description names a specific verb+resource: a Strong's word study returning the original-language definition, pronunciation, and every occurrence. That is concrete and distinguishable from generic siblings like lookup or search. It does not, however, clarify how it differs from close siblings such as original_words, pronounce, or define, which appear to overlap.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like original_words, pronounce, thesaurus, or define, despite several apparently overlapping siblings. Usage is only weakly implied by the phrase 'Strong's word study'.

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