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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a read-only listing operation implicitly, but doesn't disclose what happens with invalid references, how many entities might be returned, or whether entities are deduplicated across the passage. The output schema exists which mitigates some unknowns, but the description doesn't add much beyond the safe-read implication.

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 a single sentence with an inline example, which is efficient and front-loaded. Every word earns its place. It could arguably be scored 5, but the example could have been structured more clearly to demonstrate format flexibility.

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 a single parameter, a helpful example, and an output schema present, the description covers the core use case adequately. However, since no annotations exist and schema parameter description coverage is 0%, the description could do more to clarify what 'entities' means (people, places, events are named, which is helpful) and any limitations on reference format. It's a minimum-viable description for a single-param tool.

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%, meaning the schema provides no description of the 'reference' parameter. The description's example ('Genesis 14' or 'John 3:16') implies the format for verse/chapter references, which adds value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify edge cases like ranges ('Genesis 1-3') or combined references, leaving ambiguity. The single example format helps but is limited.

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 verb 'List' with a specific resource ('the people, places, and events linked to a verse or chapter'). It provides a concrete example ('Genesis 14' or 'John 3:16') that clarifies the expected input. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_passage (verse text) and get_cross_references, though it doesn't explicitly name those distinctions.

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 indicates the tool is for listing entities within a passage, which implies when to use it (when you want entities associated with a reference). However, it provides no explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternatives like get_entity (which presumably returns a single entity's details) or semantic_search. The context is implied rather than explicit.

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