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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. Description adds 'where available', hinting at conditional existence of references, but lacks details on pagination, error handling, or result behavior.

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?

Single sentence of 12 words, no redundancy. However, it omits parameter descriptions and could be slightly more structured without losing conciseness.

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 4 parameters (2 required) and an output schema (not shown), the description leaves gaps: no indication of return structure, how section_id qualifies the request, or what happens when cross-references are unavailable.

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%, so description carries full burden for parameter meaning, but it provides no explanations for any of the 4 parameters (author, work_id, limit, section_id). Parameter names offer limited semantics, but 'author' could be ambiguous.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'get' and specific resource 'intra-corpus references and self-references for a work or section'. This distinguishes from siblings like 'find_mentions' or 'get_allusions' which likely target different types of references.

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?

Description implies scope ('intra-corpus, self-references') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide prerequisites. No 'when-not' or sibling comparison.

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