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

The annotations already declare the operation read-only and idempotent; the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it requires the XRef index, uses BFS up to 3 hops, and reports custom model extensions, interface propagation, and severity classifications. There is no contradiction between the description and 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 dense but well-organized: WHEN, output contents, prerequisite, trigger phrases, and examples are presented in a logical order. The trigger list is somewhat redundant with the opening WHEN but still supports intent matching across languages.

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 tool with two parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete enough for selection and invocation. It explains the report contents, severity classes, BFS hop limit, prerequisite XRef index, and concrete examples, leaving no major gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by showing how objectName='SalesLine' means table/class-level impact while objectName='SalesLine.insert' means method-level impact. It also ties maxDepth to BFS hop behavior, though it does not add new syntax details beyond 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 description clearly states what the tool does: it assesses the blast radius of modifying an X++ object or method and returns a report with direct callers, transitive dependents, extensions, interface propagation, and severity. This differentiates it from siblings like find_callers and find_references by emphasizing impact analysis and severity classification.

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 an explicit WHEN condition ('about to modify an X++ object or method'), concrete trigger phrases, and a worked example for both object-level and method-level analysis. It does not explicitly say when to prefer simpler sibling tools such as find_callers or find_references, so it lacks a full when-not/alternatives matrix.

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