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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that results are deterministic and ranked, but it does not describe the output format (e.g., whether shared words are included), limits, or any side effects. It adds some behavioral context but is not comprehensive.

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 one sentence, generally concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The phrase 'the dots, connected' adds poetic flourish but little informational value, slightly costing 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the core output (verses) and ordering, but it does not mention whether the shared words are returned, any limits on results, or other constraints. It is adequate for a simple lookup tool but leaves gaps in expected behavior.

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 schema has one parameter 'ref' with no description (0% schema coverage). The description refers to 'a reference', giving conceptual meaning that the parameter is a biblical reference, but it does not specify the exact format or provide examples. This partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

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: it finds verses connected to a reference by shared original words (Strong's), and ranks them by shared-word count. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tsk_cross_references, which likely use a different basis (topic-based) for cross-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?

The description implies when to use this tool—when needing word-based (Strong's) connections between verses—but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools exist (e.g., tsk_cross_references) but are not referenced, so guidance is only implied.

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