cross_reference

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows the operation is safe. The description adds value by clarifying the tool uses semantic matching ('not a curated cross-ref index'), which is a behavioral trait beyond the annotation. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The parenthetical adds essential clarification without bloat. It 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?

Despite having an output schema (reducing need to explain returns), the description does not address the input structure or constraints. It lacks guidance on how to use parameters like limit or translation, making it incomplete for a tool with moderate complexity.

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?

The description does not mention any parameters or their roles. Schema description coverage is 0% (the tool description lacks param info), and while the schema itself has some field descriptions, the tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema. For a tool with three sub-parameters, this is insufficient.

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 'Find semantically related verses for a reference', specifying the verb ('Find') and resource ('semantically related verses'). It also distinguishes itself from a curated cross-ref index, differentiating it from siblings like search_verse or topic_lookup.

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 usage for finding related verses via semantic similarity rather than a curated index, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like search_verse or topic_lookup. No exclusions or contextual conditions are provided.

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