original_language_lookup

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates the tool is non-destructive. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., performance, required permissions, output format), but does not contradict the annotation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and differentiator.

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 an output schema available and unambiguous annotations, the description provides adequate context for a focused lookup tool. It could briefly explain what 'related English passages' means, but the core purpose is clear.

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 description mentions the core parameter 'term' but adds no details about 'limit', 'testament', or 'translation' beyond what the input schema already provides. Since the schema contains descriptions for most parameters, the description does not significantly enhance understanding.

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 function: 'Explore a Greek/Hebrew term via related English passages'. It distinguishes itself from a Strong's lexicon and, by implication, from sibling tools like search_verse or cross_reference.

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 a negative hint ('not a Strong's lexicon') but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to guidance. It does not reference alternative sibling tools or specify conditions for this tool over others.

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