find_crosswalk

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which matches the read-only 'find' semantics. The description adds that target_id is optional and characterizes the return as comparison summaries plus sector overlaps, but it does not say what changes when target_id is omitted or how results are scoped or limited.

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 with no filler, leading with the action and returned artifacts before the parameter constraints. It is efficient, though the compression leaves key semantics implicit rather than stated.

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?

With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description carries most of the burden for a comparison tool, yet it never explains what a 'comparison summary' or 'sector overlap' contains or how the optional target changes the result. For a two-parameter tool this is thin, leaving the agent guessing at output shape.

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 the description must carry the parameter burden. It does contribute two useful facts: source_id must reference an 'active' source, and target_id is optional, but neither parameter's format, validation expectations, nor the behavioral difference of omitting target_id is explained.

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 names a specific verb (find) and concrete resources (comparison summaries, sector overlaps) scoped to a source id with an optional target id. It is clear what kind of result to expect, though the term 'crosswalk' itself is never unpacked, so the agent must infer the domain concept from the noun phrase alone.

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?

It gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no comparison to the siblings (list_frameworks, get_framework, map_sector_obligations). The only hint is 'active source id', which implies a prerequisite but never states it as a condition for calling the tool versus another one.

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