Check what references an object before changing it

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is READ-ONLY, explains the impact block's verdict (live vs archived policies), and warns about full-replace mutations in Tenable OT. This is rich behavioral context beyond what any annotation would provide.

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 relatively long but densely informative. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the bullet-point structure for `kind` values makes it easy to scan. It avoids fluff and tautology.

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?

Given no annotations, four parameters, and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It covers the tool's role, usage context, parameter semantics, and expected verdict structure. The agent has everything needed to decide when and how to invoke it 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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains `kind` and `target_id` (including when `target_id` is needed). It doesn't explicitly define `after`/`limit`, but they are clearly pagination parameters and contextually obvious. The description adds substantial meaning for the core parameters.

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's purpose: 'Answers what breaks if I change this?' and identifies it as the impact check before writes on shared objects. It explicitly enumerates the relationship types via `kind`, distinguishing it from sibling list tools.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('the impact check to run BEFORE any write that touches a shared object'), explains when each `kind` is appropriate, and advises checking both directions for completeness. This is strong usage guidance.

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