fetch_translation_word_links

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'gets' or 'searches,' implying read-only behavior, but does not describe what 'word links' are, the return format, pagination, or effects of invalid or missing parameters. This is a significant transparency gap even for a read operation.

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 with no filler, front-loading the core action ('Get translation word links') and then adding the alternative filter mode. Every word earns its place; it is excellently concise.

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?

The description leaves many gaps: it does not define 'translation word links,' clarify the relationship between reference and filter, mention default values for language/organization, or explain what the output looks like. With 6 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is not sufficiently complete for effective tool invocation.

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 67% (filter, category, reference, testament have descriptions; language and organization rely on defaults). The description adds minimal extra parameter meaning—only that 'filter' enables a broader search. It does not explain language, organization, or the interplay between reference and filter, but the schema partially covers this.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('translation word links') with two clear modes: for a Bible reference or via filter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fetch_translation_word (singular) and search_biblical_resources, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The resource is specific enough to convey its unique purpose.

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 implies two usage scenarios: use it with a reference to get links, or use a filter to search across all word links. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over fetch_translation_word or search_biblical_resources, and does not mention exclusions or preconditions. The usage context is implied but not fully clarified.

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