references

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but reveals little beyond the core function. The term 'indexed' hints that results depend on a pre-built index, which is useful context, but there's no mention of failure modes, permission needs, or index freshness. This is a modest but insufficient contribution given the absent annotations.

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 16-word sentence that front-loads the verb and object, adds a valuable scope qualifier, and contains zero filler. This is exemplary conciseness—every word 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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, a 16-word description is insufficient. It doesn't clarify the 'occurrence' parameter's role (which is non-obvious for a reference finder), the default behaviors, or what the response shape looks like. Given the complexity, this is under-specified.

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 sits at 50%—three of six parameters (file, occurrence, includeDeclaration) lack inline descriptions, and the tool description offers zero parameter clarification. The rubric's baseline of 3 for >80% coverage doesn't apply here; with half the params undocumented, the description should compensate but doesn't.

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 provides a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('indexed references to a declaration') with a meaningful scope qualifier ('across module units and translation units'). This differentiates it from siblings like 'definition' by implying cross-module reach, though it doesn't name an alternative tool explicitly as the top-tier examples do.

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?

Usage is implied through the description's framing—an agent would know to use this when cross-unit references are needed—but there's no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an index needing to be built). This meets the 'implied usage' bar at exactly 3.

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