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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral promise about what the response contains: Hebrew/English titles and alternate spellings. It does not mention unknown-term behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that communicates the action, resource scope, output contents, and examples with no filler or redundancy. 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?

For a one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the essential elements: what to pass, what kind of terms are accepted, and what will be returned. The main gaps are exact result structure and not-found handling, but the low complexity and strong annotations keep this from being incomplete.

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 input schema provides zero description coverage for the 'name' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the parameter is a named term and offers examples ('Noach', 'Bereshit', 'Perek'), but it leaves language, case sensitivity, and partial-name behavior unspecified.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Look up') and identifies a resource ('a named term') with concrete examples and output fields (Hebrew/English titles, alternate spellings). It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from near-neighbor siblings like get_parasha or dictionary_lookup.

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 when to use the tool by scoping it to named terms and giving examples, but it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative routing. With many siblings such as get_parasha, resolve_name, and dictionary_lookup, this leaves some ambiguity.

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