search_keyword

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses exact-match behavior, the default KJV translation, ability to pass multiple translations side by side, result limit and true total, and that [excerpt] lines are partial. It also notes that lines are tagged for lookup_verse, which helps the agent know how to handle partial results.

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 composed of five sentences, each adding substantive information without redundancy (except a slight repeat of lookup_verse in the excerpt clause). It is compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage and details.

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?

For a search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema provided, the description explains return behavior (limit, total, excerpt tags, lookup guidance), which is essential. It also covers alternatives and translation behavior, leaving no major questions about how to use the tool or interpret results.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful examples and clarifications, such as quoting multi-word phrases, the server's configured KJV, and the 'side by side' behavior for translations. This surpasses the schema's basic descriptions but does not need to compensate for missing schema info.

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 states it 'Find verses containing an exact word or phrase' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes it from lookup_verse (by reference) and search_by_meaning (by ideas). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this when the wording matters' and provides concrete examples ('propitiation', 'still waters'). It also gives clear alternatives: 'If you have a reference, use lookup_verse; for ideas rather than wording, use search_by_meaning.' This is exemplary when-to-use guidance.

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