strongs_entry

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

Even though annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, the description adds valuable behavioral details: include_verses lists verses 'up to limit, default 10, max 25, with the true total', and 'each verse tagged so you can lookup_verse it'. It also notes accepted id formats ('g26' and 'G0026'). These go beyond the annotations and schema, providing operational context.

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 three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: main lookup capability, usage conditions, and parameter behavior. It front-loads the primary function and remains tightly packed without redundancy. Every clause adds information, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description completes the picture by specifying the return content (lemma, transliteration, gloss, definition), the optional verse listing behavior, and the relationship to lookup_verse. There are no obvious gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds further meaning by providing concrete examples for strongs_id, explaining the verse-count behavior of include_verses (limit cap, true total), and clarifying that verses are tagged for lookup_verse. This extra semantic value lifts the score above baseline, though not a full 5 since the schema already covers the basics.

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: 'Look up a Strong's lexicon entry — lemma, transliteration, gloss, and full definition — by its id'. The verb 'look up' and the specific resource (Strong's lexicon entry) make the purpose unambiguous, and the mention of id formats like 'G26' and 'H7225' differentiates it from sibling tools like lookup_verse and word_study.

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 tells when to use the tool: 'Use after word_study surfaces an id, or whenever a Strong's number appears.' It also provides an exclusion: 'For the words of a specific verse, use word_study with the reference instead.' This directly names an alternative and gives clear decision guidance.

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