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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the important epistemic constraint that only recorded lexical data is returned and that cognates or reconstructions are outside it. It also previews the return shape. However, it says nothing about occurrence counts, ordering, or what happens with an unmatched Strong's number, so the added behavioral context is strong but incomplete.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the return fields, then the call conditions, then the caveat — a sensible order. The IMPORTANT paragraph is long and slightly redundant with the earlier field list, but it earns its place by setting evidentiary expectations.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming each returned field and explaining what it represents, including the reverse direction and cross-testament linkage. For a single-parameter, read-only lookup tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it or interpret the result 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% and the schema itself supplies the format example ("H7563" or "G2316"). The description only implicitly reinforces this by saying 'Hebrew or Greek,' which maps to the H/G prefix. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the work.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Trace where a Hebrew or Greek word came from') and immediately enumerates the distinctive outputs — formed_from, words_formed_from_this, related_language_entry, proper-name status, occurrences. That field set differentiates it from get_strongs_detail and get_strongs_occurrences without the agent needing to open either 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 explicit trigger conditions: root meaning, etymology, whether two words are related, how a name reached its English spelling. It also carves out a boundary for what the data does not cover. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative for the plain-definition case, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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