Find cross references

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior; the description adds valuable behavioral detail on top: results are ordered by crowd support, the corpus never records why passages are connected, and chapter-level documents are pre-materialized with a 20-vote floor. It also flaggers the surprising consequence that lowering minVotes does not broaden results, which materially shapes an agent's expectations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: the first states purpose and ordering, the second prevents a false inference about edges between passages, and the third sets correct expectations about the minVotes threshold. Information is front-loaded and there is no redundant restatement of the title.

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 presence of an output schema, complete parameter docs, a set of safety annotations, and only three parameters, this description covers everything an agent needs to call the tool correctly. The additional corpus-size/dataset hint also gives helpful awareness when a full cross-reference set is required rather than just a query result.

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 coverage is 100% and already documents OSIS, limit default/cap, and minVotes bounds. The description goes beyond the baseline by explaining the real-world effect on minVotes: a value below 20 will not change chapter output because lower references were filtered when the corpus was materialized. This is useful guidance that the schema alone could not provide.

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 resource ('cross references') with a clear verb ('find') and scopes it as being for a verse or chapter, ordered by crowd support. It also distinguishes this tool from generic connection tools by clarifying these references have no recorded relationship type, so an agent will not confuse it with get_connections or get_graph_neighborhood.

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 practical context, especially the Chapter level materialization floor of 20 votes and the caveat that lowering minVotes will not widen results. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or tell the agent when to choose this over get_connections or other graph-related tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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