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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing the accent/cantillation-insensitive matching rule and the side-by-side source/translation return shape, though it says nothing about result capping via limit/offset.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core behavior front-loaded and examples used efficiently to illustrate the normalization rule and the expected input script.

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 five parameters and no output schema, the description usefully covers the return shape (source text and translation side by side), which would otherwise be unknowable. The gap is pagination: default limit 20 and offset are never mentioned, so an agent may believe it receives every verse.

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?

At 60% schema coverage, the description contributes the script requirement for `word` and implies `edition` supplies the translation column. It adds nothing for limit, offset, or the `language` parameter, which controls names/notes/study content and could surprise an agent.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: finds every verse where a Hebrew or Greek word occurs, with concrete examples (ἀγάπη, λόγος, חֶסֶד). It is clearly distinguishable from text-search siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

The description implies the use case (word-level lookup rather than passage lookup) and notes that accents and cantillation are ignored, which matters for query construction. However, it never states when to prefer this over search_bible or get_original_text, and gives no exclusions.

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