search_lexicon

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is safe. The description adds behavioral context: it finds multiple words for a concept and allows explaining distinctions. No mention of side effects or API behavior, but the annotations cover safety.

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 four sentences. It is front-loaded with 'USE THIS' and uses clear, direct language. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool is simple (read-only, 3 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose and usage. It does not describe return format, but that is often implicit. The sibling tools list provides context, and the description distinguishes its role.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing examples like 'love → agape, phileo, eros,' which implies the query parameter accepts English concepts. This extra guidance helps the agent use the query parameter effectively.

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: 'find Greek/Hebrew words for English concepts.' It provides specific examples (love, faith, salvation) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on lexical search. The verb 'search' combined with 'lexicon' is precise.

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 says 'USE THIS to find...' and gives clear context: 'When a user asks about a biblical concept...' It also mentions an additional use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the sibling tools list provides context.

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