get_key_terms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, making safety clear. The description adds behavioral context about the database contents (200+ terms, definitions, usage, cross-references, translation guidance), which goes beyond 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?

The description is concise, with three clear sections: purpose, database features, and usage scenarios. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given a single parameter, full schema coverage, and annotations indicating read-only/idempotent behavior, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (definitions, usage, cross-references, translation guidance). It does not detail output structure, which is acceptable without an output schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a description for 'term' including examples. The description lists additional examples (agape, atonement, covenant, grace) but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. 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?

The description clearly states 'Look up a key theological term in the FIA Key Terms database,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_bible_dictionary' and 'search_lexicon' by focusing on theological terms and providing examples.

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 description explicitly lists when to use the tool: for precise definitions, understanding scriptural usage, translation-oriented explanations, and cross-references. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear.

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