get_cross_references

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

With no annotations, the description is the only safety signal. 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation, and the incoming/outgoing contrast explains the tool's core behavior. It does not address invalid citations, access restrictions, or error behavior, but for a simple query tool this is sufficient.

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 definition is one short purposeful sentence followed by two concise parameter entries. It front-loads the primary behavior and contains no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers both parameters and the core lookup semantics well. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though naming sibling alternatives would improve context further.

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 fully compensates: it explains that citation is the provision to inspect and gives a concrete format example ('§ 1411'), and it enumerates the valid direction values ('outgoing', 'incoming', 'both'). This adds meaning well beyond the bare 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 first sentence states the exact operation ('List') and the object (what a provision cites and what cites it), making the tool's function unambiguous. It is distinct from siblings like resolve_citation or verify_citations because it targets the citation-graph relationship, not resolution or validation.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives. An agent must infer from the wording that this is for bidirectional cross-reference lookup, but the description does not state when to prefer it over sibling tools like verify_citations or search_tax_law.

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