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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation with a closed-world scope. The description adds useful provenance by identifying the two underlying cross-reference sources, which helps an agent understand what kind of evidence it will get. It still does not explain result ordering, ranking, or source weighting, keeping it below 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and immediately followed by when to use it. The sources are named compactly, and there is no redundant restatement of schema details or annotations.

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?

The tool is simple, its annotations are rich, its schema is fully described, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, sources, and triggering contexts adequately. A brief note on ordering or source weighting would make it fully complete.

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%, so both the reference format and the limit are already fully documented in the input schema. The description says the lookup is 'connected to a verse,' which is slightly narrower than the schema's support for ranges and chapters. It therefore adds little meaning beyond the structured fields, fitting the baseline 3.

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: finding cross-references, defined as other Bible passages connected to a verse. Naming the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge and OpenBible makes the scope concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish this from similarly named siblings such as connections or compare_passage, 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?

It gives clear usage context: invoke this when the user asks for related verses, parallel passages, or where else Scripture says something similar. That covers common triggering requests well. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so a 4 is appropriate.

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