search_lemma

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool returns a frequency distribution, but does not mention whether it is read-only, any side effects, limitations, or edge cases (e.g., how occurrences are counted or whether the limit applies to lemmas or glosses). The behavior is generally clear but lacks completeness.

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 concise, using two sentences plus the parameter list. It is well-structured and avoids unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The description provides enough context to understand the tool's core function and output (gloss frequency distribution across OET-RV and OET-LV). However, it does not explain what OET-RV/OET-LV are, the exact format of the output, or any prerequisites, which might be needed for full comprehension in an unfamiliar context.

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?

Although the schema has no individual parameter descriptions, the tool description includes an Args section that explains each parameter: lemma_or_strongs with examples, testament with allowed values, and limit with a default. The explanation is helpful but the 'limit' parameter could be ambiguous given the output is a frequency distribution rather than a list of occurrences.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: finding biblical occurrences via lemma or Strong's number and returning gloss frequency distribution. It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like lookup_word or search_text, though the focus on original language roots and Strong's numbers is distinctive.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only explains the arguments and return behavior, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and sibling tool list.

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