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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond these: with a commentator it returns full text, without it lists sources grouped by work, and the category default and optional text inclusion are explained. This gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's behavior without contradicting annotations.

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 well-structured with bullet points and front-loaded with the main purpose. It is somewhat long but every sentence adds value, explaining modes, categories, and supported works. It could be slightly trimmed, but the structure is clear and easy to scan.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the key behaviors: the two modes, default category, text inclusion, and supported works. It does not describe return format or pagination, but with openWorldHint and idempotent annotations, this is acceptable. An agent has sufficient information to call the tool correctly.

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 57%, with descriptions for ref, vowels, commentator, and include_text. The description adds meaning to the commentator parameter by explaining the conditional behavior (returns full text vs. lists sources), and clarifies the category parameter with its default and the enumerated list of categories. This partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions on limit and language, which are self-explanatory with defaults.

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 tool retrieves commentaries and connected sources for a passage, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_text and get_passage_context by focusing on connected sources rather than the primary text or context. The two modes (with/without commentator) are explicitly described.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: when needing commentaries or connected sources for a passage. It explains the two modes and the scope of supported works (Tanakh, Talmud, etc.). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, leaving some inference to the agent.

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