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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and delivers: it discloses homograph splitting via letter-suffixed Strong's variants, gloss-keyed substring conflation, lexicon truncation to ~700 chars, and that output lists every variant lemma. It also transparently warns about narrow gloss ranges and suggests probing lettered variants.

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 long but every sentence carries operational value: purpose, query formats, output summary, homograph caveat, gloss-conflation warning, and language options. Critical caveats are placed where they matter most, and the opening line front-loads the tool's core purpose.

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 complex lexical tool with no annotations, the description is unusually complete: it covers input flexibility, output contents, edge-case behavior, and limitations. The only minor gap is unspecified 'limit' semantics, but the output schema and default of 15 reduce the risk of misuse.

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 compensates thoroughly for query by giving multiple concrete formats ('G26', 'H2617', 'H953', 'חֶסֶד'/'חסד', 'miqweh', 'lovingkindness') and for language by listing valid values grc/hbo/arc. However, the 'limit' parameter is never mentioned in the description, leaving its meaning to inference from the schema default.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Original-language word study across the whole Bible.' It clearly enumerates query modes (Strong's number, lemma, transliteration, English gloss) and outputs (occurrence counts, distribution, lexicon entry, sample verses). This scope distinguishes it from sibling passage/reading tools like get_passage or search.

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 gives rich guidance on how to query, including zero-padding rules, pointed/unpointed lemmas, macron optionality, and the note to 'prefer Strong's or lemma queries for exact counts.' It lacks explicit when/where-not guidance against sibling tools, but the clear word-study scope and query caveats provide strong contextual usage direction.

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