word_study

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it 'provides verified lexical data', which aligns but does not significantly extend behavioral context. No 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 front-loaded with the key purpose and includes bullet-point formatting instructions. While lengthy, each part adds value for an AI agent. A slightly more streamlined version would score 5.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description provides an example of how to present results. However, it does not explicitly describe the tool's return value or fields, leaving some ambiguity.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema for parameters; it focuses on usage and output formatting.

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 explicitly states 'ALWAYS USE THIS when discussing any Greek or Hebrew word, theological term, or concept', clearly defining the tool's purpose as providing verified lexical data for word studies. This distinguishes it from siblings by positioning it as the primary word study tool.

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 gives strong usage guidance: 'ALWAYS USE THIS' and advises using even if the AI knows the word. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives like search_by_strongs or search_lexicon.

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