get_key_terms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content context beyond that — the ~200-term scope and the kinds of information returned (definitions, usage, cross-references, translation guidance) — which matters since there is no output schema.

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 purpose followed by a scannable list of contents and use cases. The 'Relevant for...' section partly restates the feature bullets above it, so there is mild redundancy, but overall it is well-sized and easy to parse.

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 tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies adequate content and use-case context to call it correctly. The main missing element is explicit disambiguation from the many sibling lookup tools.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'term' with its own examples ('agape', 'atonement', 'covenant', 'grace'). The description reinforces the example terms but adds no format, casing, or matching semantics beyond the schema, 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 ('look up') and resource ('key theological term in the FIA Key Terms database'), and previews the content type (definitions, biblical usage, cross-references, translation guidance). However, it does not differentiate from closely related siblings like get_bible_dictionary, get_theology_context, or word_study, leaving the agent to infer which source to consult.

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...' list implies usage (precise definitions, cross-Scripture usage, translation-oriented explanation), which gives contextual guidance. But it never states when to prefer this tool over the many alternative theology/lexicon tools, nor any exclusions, so the routing decision is left implicit.

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