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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine semantic context by explaining the incoming-reference direction, but says nothing about return shape, result size, or whether unscoped queries are bounded.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the core behavior. Slight redundancy: 'Complement to get_cross_references (outgoing); this shows incoming' and 'Use to find all consumers' partially restate the same directionality idea.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description gives the agent enough to invoke it correctly. Return-format expectations are the only notable omission, and the annotations already cover the safety behavior.

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 0% and the parameter is only named 'id', but the description clarifies that the id identifies a pattern (referring to it as pattern_id), which is meaningful semantic information missing from the schema. It adds no format, example, or lookup guidance beyond that.

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 ('Return patterns that reference the given pattern_id in their cross_references') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_cross_references. An agent can tell the direction of the relationship without opening either schema.

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 alternative tool (get_cross_references as 'outgoing') and states the selecting condition ('this shows incoming'), plus a concrete use case ('find all consumers of a given pattern'). The when-to-use decision is fully specified.

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