Find parallels and cross-references

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, offline behavior, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: the data comes from a bundled VRI edition, every link states its source and match method, ambiguous references are omitted, and SuttaCentral parallels are link-only. It also states that results are paginated, which is useful for planning calls.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then organized into numbered result types. It is dense but mostly earns its length by explaining provenance, matching, and exclusions; a slightly tighter structure would improve readability, but there is little wasted content.

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 moderate complexity, rich annotations, and fully described schema with no output schema, the description is complete enough to call the tool correctly. It explains both result categories, the commentary passages and matching words, segment refs and similarity scores, source attribution, exclusions, the SuttaCentral link, and pagination.

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 the uid, limit, and offset parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description only says 'Paginated' and otherwise adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 verb and resource: find parallels and cross-references for a text. It goes further by distinguishing two result types—commentary citations and word-for-word passage parallels—so an agent can tell what this tool returns without opening a schema.

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 context is clear enough that this tool is for finding parallels and cross-references, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus siblings such as find_citations, get_commentary, compare_translations, or search_texts. The usage is implied rather than guided with exclusions or alternatives.

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