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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose data provenance (openbible.info, CC BY, expansion of the public-domain TSK) and the ranking mechanism (relevance votes), but says nothing about rate limits, behavior on an invalid/unresolvable verse reference, pagination, or what 'Found + attributed' means operationally.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence, which is good. However, the bracketed internal tag and the license/attribution clause consume space without helping an agent select or invoke the tool, and the trailing 'Found + attributed.' is cryptic filler.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. It omits the `ref` format, what `limit` controls, and any sense of the return structure, leaving real gaps an agent must close by trial.

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%. The phrase 'for a verse' only loosely implies what `ref` should contain (no format examples like 'John 3:16'), and the `limit` parameter is never mentioned at all, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 clear resource and scope: editorial cross-references for a verse, ranked by relevance votes. It does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling `cross_references`, and the leading tag '[WORD · internal]' adds no clarity, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative `cross_references`. An agent has to guess which of the two reference tools to pick.

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