xrefs

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the data source and that results are ranked by community votes, though it does not describe pagination, response shape, or how limit/min_votes affect output.

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. It conveys the core resource, scope, source, and ranking in a compact form.

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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, the description should do more to explain parameter effects and return values. It mentions ranking and source but omits how limit and min_votes work and what a response contains.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies that 'ref' is a single verse and hints at community-vote ranking, but it does not explain 'limit' or 'min_votes' clearly, leaving two of three parameters semantically underspecified.

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 identifies the resource (cross-references), the scope (one verse), and the source/ranking (OpenBible.info, community votes). It distinguishes itself from siblings like passage or search by being specifically about cross-references, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for one verse,' suggesting this is the tool for retrieving cross-references tied to a single verse. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus passage, search, or commentary, nor does it provide exclusions.

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