cross_references

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: ranking by votes, include_text behavior, limit defaults and caps, returning the true total, and target formatting. This gives the agent a strong understanding of what to expect from the 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance, then detailed behavior. It is moderately long but every sentence contributes useful information without filler, making it appropriately concise for the depth provided.

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, the presence of an output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: when to use, how it behaves, parameter effects, and return structure. It is fully adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats some schema details (e.g., include_text, limit) but does not introduce new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 function: 'List the passages traditionally linked to a verse or passage.' It distinguishes itself from sibling lookup_verse by explicitly mentioning the use case 'what other passages relate to this one?' and naming the sibling tool, making it obvious when to choose this tool.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: 'Use after lookup_verse when the question is...' and gives concrete examples. However, it does not explicitly specify when not to use the tool or mention alternatives other than lookup_verse, though the implied use case is clear.

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