topic_lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'semantic search' implies a read-only operation. It adds no further behavioral context such as performance characteristics or input constraints beyond what annotations cover. The description does not contradict 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's core function with no extraneous words or repetition.

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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values, but it omits usage tips for parameters like 'limit' or 'translation'. The tool's purpose is clear, but deeper guidance on effective use is absent.

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 0%, and the description only explains the 'topic' parameter with an example ('e.g. grace or faith'). The 'limit' and 'translation' parameters lack explanatory context in the description, though the schema provides some enum descriptions for translation.

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 'Find verses related to a theological topic via semantic search' clearly states the action (find) and resource (verses) with a specific method (semantic search), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_verse (likely keyword) and theological_analysis (likely analysis).

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 implies semantic search for broad topics but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_verse for exact phrases or get_verse for specific references. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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