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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds that results are an overview with grouped counts and related items, but it does not disclose output structure, pagination, or how the included categories are actually returned.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The first states the tool's scope with an itemized list; the second provides a usage directive. Everything included earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what the tool returns; it does list content categories, but not the shape of the response or the behavior of the include parameter. The core use case is clear, but parameter and result details remain under-specified.

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%, and the description never explicitly explains ref or include. The term 'passage' maps to ref and the output categories echo the include enums, but an agent must infer the reference format and how include affects the response.

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 names the operation (overview of everything connected to a passage) and enumerates concrete content categories: counts by category/book, related topics, source sheets, manuscript images, and web articles. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_commentaries, making selection straightforward.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool for exploration before drilling in with get_commentaries, giving clear context. It does not mention other alternatives or exclusions, but the stated use case is enough to guide basic selection.

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