관주(교차 참조) 조회

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions results are ordered by relevance, but fails to state whether the tool is read-only, what the output format is, or any side effects like rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 too terse, consisting of a single phrase that lacks essential details. While it is short, it does not earn its place because it omits critical information that would help the agent use the tool correctly.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the tool description is incomplete. It does not clarify input format, output structure, or usage context compared to sibling tools, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent.

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%, meaning parameters 'reference' and 'limit' have no descriptions. The tool description does not explain the expected format of 'reference' (e.g., book, chapter, verse) or the purpose of 'limit', adding no value beyond the schema.

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 that the tool retrieves cross-references for a verse, ordered by relevance. It uses the Korean phrase '관주(교차 참조) 조회' which translates to 'cross-reference lookup', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'search' or '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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'lookup' for verse text or 'search' for full-text search. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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