Find references

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds useful semantic context about what kind of results come back (referencing objects of various types), but it says nothing about result grouping, truncation, or how the module filter narrows output. Given the annotations carry the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the core definition is front-loaded and the input-format note is appended where it is needed. Every clause earns its place.

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, the description must convey what comes back, and the examples do that well for a read-only query tool. The gap is the module parameter's filtering semantics ('official, mods…'), which is left entirely to the schema, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 all three parameters (ref, limit, module) are already documented in the schema, including the 'Prefix.id or bare id' format restated in the description. The description adds no 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 and resource ('Lists objects that reference a given object') and immediately disambiguates the direction of the lookup with three concrete examples (troops carrying Item.x, troops upgrading into NPCCharacter.y, settlements in Faction.z). These examples let an agent distinguish this reverse-lookup tool from forward-lookup siblings like get_object or search_objects without opening any schema.

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 examples imply when the tool is appropriate (you already know the target object and want its referrers), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no sibling is named as the alternative for forward lookups. Usage must be inferred from the examples rather than stated.

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