commentary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful behavioral guarantee: content is 'found and cited, never generated' (a provenance/no-hallucination trait) and is public-domain and attributed. It stops short of permissions, rate limits, or response shape, so a moderate score is warranted.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and its key provenance guarantee. The cryptic '[WORD · internal]' prefix adds little signal but costs few tokens; overall structure is efficient.

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 lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the reference format, what 'source' controls, and roughly what comes back. None of this is present, leaving significant gaps an agent would need to guess at.

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 0% for two parameters. The description maps loosely onto 'ref' via 'on a reference' but says nothing about the expected format, and the 'source' parameter is entirely undocumented in both schema and description. With the description unable to compensate for the coverage gap, this is below baseline.

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 names a specific resource (public-domain, attributed commentary by Matthew Henry) on a reference, which is concrete and distinguishable from generic siblings like teachings or narratives. It is clear what is returned, but never explicitly contrasts itself with adjacent tools that might also surface commentary-like material.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus siblings such as teachings, narratives, original_words, or word_study, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent must infer usage entirely from the description's topic.

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