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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only' is largely redundant. What the description does add is behavioral context the annotations cannot: results come from the live code graph rather than a static grep, and each dependent is returned with file, owner and in-flight work. It still says nothing about cost, latency or auth requirements for a potentially deep traversal.

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?

Front-loads the trigger conditions, then the payload, then the skip rule, in three dense clauses with essentially no filler. The only waste is the trailing 'Read-only', which repeats the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 read-only graph query with no output schema, the description carries exactly the missing information: what is returned (dependents by level with file, owner and in-flight work), how it differs from manual grep, and when the result would be redundant. Nothing needed to decide to call it is absent.

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 100%, so every parameter (repo_id, path, symbol, depth) is already documented in the schema. The description's 'level by level' loosely mirrors the depth parameter but adds no format or constraint detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete analysis operation (all dependents of a symbol, level by level) and frames it as the answer to 'what breaks if I change this'. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_symbol, explain_code and get_briefing, and it even names the alternative approach it replaces (repo-wide grep).

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?

Names the triggering situations explicitly (before renaming, changing a signature, or deleting) and gives an explicit skip condition tied to a sibling's output ('skip it when the briefing's Coverage line says every dependent is already listed'). That is both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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