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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It transparently states what data is returned, the original language scope, and the Septuagint source's limitation (surface form only, no morphological data). This is helpful behavioral context beyond a simple 'returns interlinear'.

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 earning its place: first states the core purpose and fields, second adds the critical Septuagint exception and limitation, third gives practical examples. It is front-loaded and free of fluff.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers input format, range constraints, data fields, and special OT/Septuagint behavior. It could clarify what counts as a 'short range', but overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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 single 'reference' parameter is explained through examples and the constraint 'verse or short range', adding format and scope guidance. Since schema coverage is 0%, this description is essential and largely compensates for the lack of schema-level documentation.

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: provides word-by-word original language data with specific linguistic fields (surface form, lemma, Strong's, gloss, morphology). It distinguishes itself from sibling passage tools by emphasizing original language analysis and the OT/NT distinction.

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?

Concrete examples ('John 1:1', 'Genesis 1:1-3') and the explicit scope 'verse or short range' give clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly mention when to choose this over siblings like word_study, but the focus on original language implies the relevant use case.

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