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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it specifies the scope is limited to the 66 books, notes there is no key requirement, and describes the labelled output categories. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but the added auth and scope details are valuable.

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 but heavily loaded with an enumerated list of categories and examples. The core purpose is front-loaded, but the long list of sources could be seen as better placed in the output schema, and the bracketed '[no key]' is terse and unexplained.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values in detail, yet it does so extensively. The critical gap is the lack of parameter semantics for the required 'reference' field. Annotations already cover safety and idempotency, so the remaining omission is input format guidance.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single required parameter. It refers to a 'passage' but never explains the expected reference format, constraints, or how to handle references outside the 66 books. The examples given (Jude 1:14–15, 1 Enoch 1:9) appear within the output description and may confuse rather than clarify the input format.

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 what the tool returns: links for a passage, grouped by source categories. It is clear that this is a cross-reference retrieval tool, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_connections_by_book or get_messianic_prophecies, which also return related 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tools such as get_bible_passage or get_connections_by_book. Usage is only implied by the name and content description.

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