find_field_references

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: script matching is substring-based (LIKE), results may have false positives, and dynamically-built references can be missed. It also frames the output as 'candidates to review' rather than a definitive list, which is beyond the structured hints.

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 three sentences long, each with a distinct purpose: state the function, state the use case, and disclose limitations. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant or filler content.

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 carries the burden of explaining the result shape, and it does convey that results include dictionary entries and script hits. However, it does not specify the exact structure of the response or how the 'limit' parameter affects results, leaving some ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the description adds limited parameter-level detail. The context that script matches are substring hits informs how the 'field' parameter is used, but this is more behavioral than semantic. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb+resource structure—'Find where a table field is used'—and enumerates the scope (dictionary entry, scripts) clearly. It distinguishes itself from sibling find tools like find_script_references by focusing on fields and including dictionary metadata.

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 states when to use the tool ('before renaming or removing a field') and provides caveats about false positives and misses. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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