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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It discloses meaningful provenance (the concept graph is seeded from Easton's Bible Dictionary), which helps an agent trust scope, and the read-only nature is implied by 'List'. But it omits auth/permission needs, rate limits, and whether results are exhaustive or ranked.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the core action and data source lead, and the sibling differentiation is appended. Every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and one parameter is adequately covered by the examples. The main remaining gap is behavioral context (exhaustiveness, ordering, auth) that neither annotations nor the description supply, but for a simple read/list tool the definition is nearly sufficient.

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?

The single 'reference' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so with concrete format examples ('Genesis 14' or 'John 3:16'), which clarify the expected citation syntax better than the bare string schema does. It could still specify accepted book-name forms or ranges, but the value added is real.

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 ('List'), a precise resource ('theological concepts and lexical keywords'), and the underlying data source ('OT+NT concept graph seeded from Easton's Bible Dictionary'). It also explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling entities_in_passage, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening 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?

Provides a clear routing rule: use this for abstract themes/keyword nodes, use entities_in_passage for people/places/events. Example inputs ('Genesis 14', 'John 3:16') further anchor usage. However, it doesn't state exclusions or when neither sibling applies (e.g. vs. get_concept or word_study), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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