search_by_strongs

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 without the description. The description adds some useful context about what the call yields (passages showing author usage and range of senses), but says nothing about result count behavior, ordering, or pagination beyond what the schema states.

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 in the first sentence, followed by provenance and output framing. The second sentence is somewhat elaborate in describing 'range of senses', but each sentence carries usable information and there is no filler.

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 present, the description correctly compensates by describing what comes back (passages containing the word). Combined with 100% schema coverage for inputs and annotations covering safety, the definition is essentially complete; only result-count/ordering behavior is left implicit.

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 `strongs` (with format examples G26/H430) and `limit` (default 20) are already fully documented. The description reinforces that the number is normally sourced from another tool, which is mild added value, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: search by Strong's number across every verse containing that word. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools that supply the input (word_study, search_lexicon), so an agent knows this is the concordance-lookup step rather than the lexical analysis step.

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?

It gives clear context for use by stating the Strong's number is 'typically obtained from word_study or search_lexicon', which routes the agent through the right workflow. It does not state when-not to use it or contrast it against find_similar_passages / get_cross_references, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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