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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses what is returned (definition plus pointer to the full Easton entry, verse anchors, instantiating entities), that a Strong's number resolves directly to a keyword node, and the graph's size/origin. It does not cover auth or rate-limit behavior, but for a read-only lookup this is minor.

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-loads the core purpose, then return shape, then parameter notes, then the sibling pointer — a logical order with little waste. The parenthetical DESIGN.md reference and nested asides add minor noise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be restated, yet the description still adds useful framing (seed source, graph scale, entity examples). Combined with the parameter vocabulary and sibling routing, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only edge handling (e.g. what happens on a miss, empty concept_type) is unaddressed.

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 0% and the schema defines no enums, so the description must compensate — and it does, supplying the concept_type vocabulary (theme | keyword) and the non-obvious rule that 'name' accepts Strong's numbers like 'G225'. The empty-string default for concept_type is left unexplained, keeping it from a 5.

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+resource ('look up a theological concept or lexical keyword in the OT+NT concept graph') and scopes it further with node count and seed source. It also distinguishes itself from the closely related get_concept_relations sibling, so an agent can route 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?

Explicitly names the alternative for a different need ('For typed relations to OTHER concepts ... use get_concept_relations(name)'), which is strong routing guidance. It lacks when-not-to-use guidance relative to other siblings like get_entity or word_study, so it falls short of a full 5.

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