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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the types of connections considered (dictionary relation graph, shared footnote terms, human-approved resonance) and the key trait that results may have no character overlap with the query passage. This gives the agent a clear model of what the tool returns and why.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose: '한 절에 이어진 관련 개념·관련 구절'. The parenthetical explanations are dense but each adds meaningful detail about relationship sources. It is slightly dense, but no sentence is wasted.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description explains the kind of results returned, the relationship criteria, and why the tool adds value beyond search. It does not describe output format, ordering, or empty-result behavior, but the core context needed to select and call the tool is present.

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 input schema already covers both parameters fully: id is described as 절 id and book as 책 id with the list of valid values. The description does not add parameter-specific details, but with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action and resource: it retrieves related concepts and passages linked to a given passage via dictionary relations, shared footnote words, and human-approved resonance. It also distinguishes itself from search tools by explicitly noting that retrieved passages may not share overlapping characters, so an agent can tell it apart from search_scripture.

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 concrete guidance on when this tool is valuable: when related passages cannot be found by keyword search because they share no overlapping characters. It implies use for semantic/curated relatedness rather than text search, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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