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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it lists the exact outputs (total count, per-book distribution, occurrence list with inflected forms, lexicon data including Abbott-Smith for Greek) and explains NT edition selection via texttyp. It also clarifies that counts are always exact, which is useful behavioral information.

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 a single dense paragraph with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, then covers search methods, outputs, and edition selection. Every sentence adds critical information.

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?

The tool is complex, but the description covers the core functionality well: how to search, what results look like, and edition selection. Given an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values. It's slightly incomplete around edge cases like mixed-testament searches, but overall it's adequate.

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 description coverage is 100% and each parameter is well-explained. The description adds value by marking Strong's as the preferred method and referencing bible_original, which provides additional context beyond the schema. It also explicitly notes the texttyp default and that it's ignored for Hebrew, though this is already in the schema.

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 'Concordance / word study: find ALL occurrences of an original-language word across the Bible.' This clearly identifies the tool's function (find all occurrences) and its scope (original-language words in the Bible). It distinguishes itself from siblings like bible_lookup or bible_search by focusing on word study and referencing bible_original for lemma input.

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 states when to use this tool ('word study') and gives specific search methods (by Strong's number or exact lemma from bible_original). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough to guide selection among the sibling tools.

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