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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the tool is paid via x402 starting at $0.02, and returns resolved module edges plus evidence, which tells the agent about cost and output character.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core capability front-loaded and the cost caveat second. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description only hints at the return shape via 'resolved module edges and evidence'. With four parameters at 0% schema coverage, including an undocumented required nested array, the definition is not sufficient for an agent to construct a correct call.

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% and the description never mentions files, limit, offset, or symbol. Critically, the required parameter is a batch array of {path, content} objects (max 96), and nothing in the description signals that the agent must upload file contents rather than a path or module name.

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 specific verb and resource: find modules/files that import a target TS/JS module, i.e. reverse-dependency lookup. This implicitly disambiguates from the sibling get_imports (forward direction) and find_references, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over analyze_impact, find_references, or get_imports, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The only usable signal is the implied reverse-dependency framing.

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