get_bible_dictionary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds real value by disclosing corpus size (500+ articles) and the return shape ('full dictionary article with cross-references'), but does not cover lookup-miss behavior or availability constraints.

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-loaded with the core action, then a scannable bullet list of article categories, then the return note. The 'Relevant for' sentence partially restates the bullet list, which is mild redundancy but not bloat.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description supplies both the corpus scope and the return format. The main gap is routing guidance against the many context/lookup siblings.

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 100% and the single 'topic' parameter is documented with four example values in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about matching behavior (exact vs. fuzzy topic match, singular/plural), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Look up a topic in the Tyndale Bible Dictionary') and enumerates the corpus scope (people, places, doctrines, customs, history, archaeology). It is clearly a reference-lookup tool, but it does not name which sibling to prefer when the same topic could be served by get_key_terms, get_ane_context, get_theology_context, or get_study_notes.

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 'Relevant for...' sentence gives use cases (background, historical/cultural context, person/place/concept article, theological definition), which implies when to reach for it. However, it names no alternative and no exclusion, so the agent must infer how this differs from the overlapping context tools in the sibling list.

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