parse_morphology

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. The description goes further by disclosing the shape of the response — part of speech, person, number, tense, voice, mood, case, gender — which compensates for the absence of an output schema. It stops short of describing error or fallback behavior.

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 purpose, then a short per-language format breakdown, then the return fields — every sentence is relevant. The 'V-AAI-3S' example is repeated in both the description and the schema, a minor redundancy.

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 two-parameter, stateless read tool with no output schema, the definition is nearly complete: it names both supported code systems, the default language, and the grammatical categories returned. Only edge-case behavior (invalid or ambiguous codes, unknown language) is left unaddressed.

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 both parameters carry their own descriptions, examples and the greek default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's worked example ('V-AAI-3S' = Verb, Aorist, Active, Indicative, 3rd person, Singular) adds decoding meaning, but it duplicates the schema's example rather than extending it.

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 ('Explain') and resource ('morphological/grammatical parsing code'), and the two formats (Robinson for Greek, Westminster/OpenScriptures for Hebrew) make the scope unambiguous. No sibling tool (word_study, search_lexicon, lookup_verse) does code decoding, so it is clearly distinguishable.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you have a morphology code and need it decoded. However, it never states when to prefer this over word_study or search_lexicon (e.g., after retrieving a code from a verse lookup), nor what happens with an unrecognized code. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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