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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions that the reverse index is AOID-densified from step text and that outgoing includes an external category. However, it does not discuss error behavior, pagination, or performance implications, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 a single focused paragraph that front-loads the main purpose. It is detailed but not overly verbose, though it could be structured with bullet points for clarity. Overall efficient.

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, so description should explain return format. It mentions references are clause IDs and external URLs but does not describe the response structure, pagination, or behavior for missing parameters. Incomplete given complexity.

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%, so description should compensate. It explains `direction` and `include_cross_spec` well, but fails to describe `spec`, `limit`, and `edition` parameters, covering only 3 of 6 parameters. The description adds meaning for some but leaves others undocumented.

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 the tool returns outgoing and incoming references for a clause ID, distinguishing it from siblings like clause.get or spec.search. It explicitly defines outgoing (cites) and incoming (cited by) and mentions external specs, giving a specific verb and resource.

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 implies usage for cross-referencing but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like spec.search or clause.list. It mentions the direction parameter but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use the tool.

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