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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations: the operation is EXPENSIVE and performs a full index scan over O(1M+ chunks). It also discloses automatic normalization of label ID forms (`@SYS124480` vs `@SYS:124480`), which is not visible in annotations or schema. No contradiction exists 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 every sentence earns its place: purpose, use case, cost warning, alternative routing, label behavior, and an exclusion. The most critical facts are front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description provides sufficient context to select and invoke it correctly: what it searches, why to use it, how expensive it is, when to prefer an alternative, and how label IDs are handled. The parameter schema fills in limits and defaults, leaving no critical 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?

The schema already covers all three parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the `name` parameter accepts not only object/method names but also fields and label IDs, and by explaining the dual label ID forms. This goes slightly beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: a full index scan for all usages of an object, method, field, or label ID. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming find_callers and find_extensions as different alternatives. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (impact analysis before changing or deleting an object) and when not to use it (NOT for extensions only — use find_extensions). It also names the preferred alternative, find_callers, with the condition that the XRef index is loaded. This is excellent routing guidance.

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