search_by_strongs

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns actual verses and shows usage context, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. It effectively complements the annotations without contradiction.

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 and well-structured. It front-loads the usage instruction ('USE THIS after word_study'), then lists bullet points of benefits, and ends with a summary statement. Every sentence serves a purpose without 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?

Given the strong input schema, annotations, and the absence of an output schema, the description provides complete contextual guidance. It explains the workflow (after word_study), the purpose (transform definition into demonstration), and the output style (actual verses, range of meanings, key passages). No gaps remain for an agent to understand when and why to use this tool.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters ('strongs' and 'limit') have clear descriptions in the input schema. The description does not add further meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, which meets the baseline expectation.

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 the tool's purpose: to find actual verses where a Strong's number appears, transforming 'word study from definition into demonstration.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying 'USE THIS after word_study' and contrasts with search_lexicon by focusing on actual usage.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'USE THIS after word_study' and explains the context of showing how a word is actually used. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the workflow context is clear and sufficient for an agent to make appropriate decisions.

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