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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds rich behavioral semantics beyond that: a uniform facet list, the three align verdicts (exact, frontier, unresolved), the distinction between transient outage and 'no edge', and when an IRI accompanies an exact identifier facet.

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 front-loads the core cross-reference action, then tightly specifies the emitted facets and verdict semantics. Despite domain jargon, every sentence contributes necessary detail, especially since there is no output schema.

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, the description adequately covers the return format and verdict meanings, while annotations cover the safety profile. It omits operational constraints and any usage guidance, so it is strong but not fully complete for every decision an agent must make.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond 'one concept' and does not clarify the optional lang default or its effect on rendering literals.

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 verb ('Cross-reference') and resource ('one concept across EU and global authority id-spaces') and explains the output as aligned facets. It does not explicitly differentiate the tool from any sibling, and no sibling names are referenced, so a 4 rather than 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?

No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The description explains what happens after invocation but not under what circumstances an agent should choose this tool over, for example, source_verify_bearing or library_verify.

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