get_cross_references

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

The description discloses the main behavior: returning cross-references with full verse text. No annotations exist, so the description handles transparency. It lacks details on limits or error states, but the core action is clear.

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?

One 14-word sentence, front-loaded with key action and scope. No filler or redundancy. Every word adds value.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It omits the meaning of 'marginal cross-references', format options, and potential default behaviors (e.g., missing book?). Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 40% with only book and langwritten described. The description adds no parameter details (e.g., what format='markdown' means or how chapter/verse relate). It does not compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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 it retrieves 'Study Bible marginal cross-references for one verse' and includes 'complete text of each referenced verse'. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bible_verse or get_footnotes.

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 when needing cross-references for a specific verse but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling alternatives (e.g., get_footnotes for footnotes) might be preferable.

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