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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: pagination limit (40 verses), `next_offset` continuation, `by_book` map when paginated, the distinction between `total` (verses) and `uses_in_scripture` (all uses), language/edition defaults, licence-based refusals, and the KJV numbering caveat for certain editions. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 is front-loaded in the first clause, and subsequent sentences each carry operational weight (counting semantics, pagination, phrase search, editions). It is dense and long, but almost every sentence earns its place; slight tightening would push it to a 5.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly — explaining `total`, `uses_in_scripture`, `by_book`, `next_offset`, and the fields inside `original`. Combined with the edition and numbering caveats, an agent can call and interpret results without further documentation.

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; the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining that `total` counts verses (within `book` when given) while `uses_in_scripture` counts every occurrence, that each verse's `original` lists every use there, and by giving concrete `followed_by`/`gap` phrase examples. It largely reinforces rather than duplicates.

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 the exact operation — listing every verse where a Hebrew or Greek word occurs, keyed by Strong's number — and labels it a concordance. This is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_strongs_for_verse (verse→numbers) or get_strongs_detail (word dictionary entry).

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 explicit use cases ('see how Scripture itself uses a word', 'find passages that explain each other') plus the mechanism (pass `book`, `followed_by`, `gap`) for narrowing. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative to route away from, which keeps it from a 5, but the intended context is clear.

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