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

Annotations only say readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world; the description goes far beyond by disclosing that multiple unrelated people can share a name (up to twenty-nine), that ALL of them are returned, that family members carry a follow-on identity string for chained lookups, and that source uncertainty is deliberately preserved via '(?)' and 'Unnamed#N' conventions. It also instructs the agent to disambiguate against verse references and to state residual ambiguity rather than guess — behavioral guidance not encoded in any structured field.

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 purpose and the loudest disambiguation warning are front-loaded, and even the long middle sentence carries non-redundant information. The capitalised CRITICAL clause and the data-quirk conventions are dense but earned; a little of the verse-matching advice could be trimmed without loss.

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 no output schema, the description must itself convey return shape — and it does, describing each individual's fields, family links, verse references, and coordinates for places. For a read-only lookup with three well-documented parameters, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or interpret the response is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains why 'name' yields many results, and it clarifies that the identity string is carried on related persons so they 'can look them up in turn' — context the parameter's one-line schema note does not convey. It does not add format detail for strongs_number, so it stops short of a 5.

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 opens with a concrete statement of what the tool resolves ('Who a biblical name actually belongs to') and enumerates the record contents (identity, description, tribe/nation, family, verses, place coordinates). It explicitly contrasts itself with get_word_origin, so an agent can separate it from the lexicon-oriented siblings without opening a 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 gives an explicit trigger ('CALL THIS WHENEVER A QUESTION IS ABOUT A PERSON OR PLACE RATHER THAN A WORD') followed by concrete example question shapes — identity, parentage, marriage, appearance, same-person tests. It also names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it ('For what a WORD means ... use get_word_origin'), which is exactly the when/when-not pairing expected at the top of the scale.

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