common-get-item-referrer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered by structured data. Beyond that the description adds nothing: no mention of what a "referrer" result looks like, whether results are paginated or bounded, or performance characteristics, despite there being no output schema to carry that burden.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence is efficient in size, but half of it ("showing which items reference it") is redundant with the first half, so the sentence does not fully earn its length.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no required parameters, the description is too thin: it does not describe the shape or scope of returned referrers, nor clarify the id/path resolution behavior that the schema hints at. An agent has little beyond the schema to call this correctly.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters (id/path mutual exclusion, full being diagnostics-only, fields, version, database, language). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Gets") and resource ("items referring to a Sitecore item"), so the core action is clear. However, it fails to distinguish itself from the very similarly named sibling common-get-item-reference, and the trailing clause "showing which items reference it" merely restates the verb phrase.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The near-identical sibling common-get-item-reference creates real ambiguity that the description does nothing to resolve, and no prerequisites or conditions are stated.

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