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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only dependency lookup, but it never states that it has no side effects, what it returns, or how results are limited or paginated. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core scope is front-loaded and the deletion caveat is expressed economically. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description gives the tool's scope and a clear usage trigger, which is useful for a simple lookup. However, there is no output schema and no statement about response shape, whether it returns flow objects or counts, or error behavior, leaving some ambiguity for the 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%, so the description needs to compensate. 'Flows referencing a tag' meaningfully connects entityType and entityId to the query, and the schema's enum pins entityType to 'tag'. However, the limit parameter and the exact semantics of entityId (e.g., ID vs. name) are left to 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 phrase 'Flows referencing a tag' clearly identifies the tool's output—flows that reference a tag—and the tool name 'find_references' supplies the verb. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_flows and search_tags, though it is terse and could be more explicit about the returning behavior.

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?

'Use before tag deletes' gives an explicit trigger condition for when to call this tool: before a destructive tag deletion, to discover dependent flows. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but it provides practical usage context beyond the schema.

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