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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes only the cryptic '[no key]' note (presumably no API key required), which is mildly useful but adds no information about result shape or matching behavior beyond what annotations and the output schema provide.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that gets straight to the resource and the accepted query forms with no filler. The trailing '[no key]' fragment is cryptic rather than informative, which slightly undermines otherwise tight structure.

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-value detail is legitimately out of scope. For a two-parameter search tool with four accepted match modes, the definition is minimally adequate but omits the sibling differentiation (get_word_study) and any explanation of the 'limit' cap that an agent needs to call it well.

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%, so the description carries the burden for the required 'query' parameter. It does useful work by naming the four accepted input forms (gloss, transliteration, lemma, Strong's number), but leaves 'limit' entirely unexplained and gives no guidance on how matching works across the enumerated forms.

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 ('Find Greek or Hebrew lemmas') and enumerates the four matchable field types, which clearly frames a lexeme-search operation distinct from verse- or article-oriented siblings. However it never names the closely related get_word_study sibling, so the boundary between searching for a lemma and fetching a study of one is left for the agent to infer.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_word_study or search_articles, which an agent would plausibly confuse with this tool. The '[no key]' fragment hints at an auth precondition but is too terse to function as usage guidance.

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