get_references

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

With no annotations, the description fully handles behavioral disclosure. It reveals the 500-reference cap, pagination via offset, and that responses include structured data plus a total-count notice. It does not mention rate limits or authorization, but those are not critical for a read-only lookup tool.

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 well-structured with clear sections for each direction, uses bullet-style formatting for readability, and every sentence adds essential guidance. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, two modes), the description covers all necessary details: parameter requirements per mode, default behaviors, response structure, pagination limit, and output format. Without an output schema, it still describes the return data adequately.

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%, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds semantic value beyond the schema by explaining parameter roles in context (e.g., section_number is required for outgoing, optional for incoming) and linking params to use cases (include_subsections only relevant for outgoing).

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 the tool's purpose: finding cross-references between 3GPP specs and RFCs. It distinguishes two modes (outgoing and incoming) with specific resource targets (specs, RFCs, sections), and the sibling context shows no other tool overlaps with this function.

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 explicitly explains when to use outgoing vs incoming direction, lists required vs optional parameters for each, and notes a default behavior ('outgoing (default)'). It also mentions a cap of 500 references with pagination, guiding the agent on handling large result sets.

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