lookup_name

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds value by disclosing what the entry returns — original-language name, description, key verses, ACAI annotations, and immediate relationships (parents/children/siblings/spouse) — which goes beyond the annotations.

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-loads the core purpose and return contents, then ends with precise sibling routing. The relationship bullet list with examples is somewhat verbose but each item clarifies scope, so it largely 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so thoroughly (fields, relationship directions, data coverage). Minor gaps remain around result limits or ambiguity handling when multiple names match, but overall it is complete enough to invoke confidently.

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%, so both parameters (name, type) are already documented in the schema. The description's examples ('Abraham, David, Bethlehem') reinforce but do not add syntax or format meaning beyond the schema; 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 ('general information about a biblical person, place, or thing by name'), with concrete examples and scoping counts (4,000+ persons, 1,000+ places). It clearly separates itself from explore_genealogy, explore_person_events, and explore_place by naming them.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Multi-generation lineages are covered by explore_genealogy, a person's life events by explore_person_events, and a location's full history by explore_place.' Each alternative is paired with the condition that selects it, leaving little inference.

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