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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds the meaningful scope detail that the word is studied across the entire Bible rather than a passage, but says nothing about how results are ordered or capped, which matters for a word occurring hundreds of times.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, followed by the use case and the routing rule. The concrete examples (agape, logos, hesed) earn their space by anchoring the abstract 'Strong's number' concept.

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 need not be spelled out, and the description covers scope, input provenance, and the sibling handoff. The only shortfall is the unmentioned result-limit behavior for high-frequency words like hesed.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the G26/H2617 format. The description reinforces the semantic intent of 'strong' by pairing the tool with named word studies, but adds no new constraint and never mentions the limit parameter's effect.

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 ('Study one Hebrew or Greek word across the Bible by its Strong's number') plus the three things returned (lexicon glosses, occurrence count, verses). It explicitly positions itself against the sibling that supplies input (get_words), so an agent can distinguish the pair 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?

Gives the use case ('word studies' such as agape, logos, hesed) and names the alternative tool with the exact condition that selects it: get_words supplies the Strong's numbers needed as input here. That is an explicit when-to-use plus routing rule, not an inference.

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