find_references_to

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are paged within a response budget and describes some returned fields, but it does not explicitly state read-only/side-effect behavior, permissions, or error behavior.

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 front-loaded and contains no filler. The first sentence is quite dense with nested clauses, but every part contributes to specifying the tool's scope and output.

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 four-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description does a good job explaining the returned data (matching index, source file, line, cross-document) and paging constraints. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly stating read-only behavior, but the essential context is present.

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 the schema already documents limit, model, offset, and assembly. The description adds domain meaning around assembly keys and UUID/ID matching, but does not explain parameter behavior beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('Find') and detailed resource ('fields, flags, props, and links that OSCAL Metaschema index-has-key constraints require to reference an assembly by key'), and explicitly distinguishes this from a UUID-field search. It tells an agent exactly what class of references is returned.

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 a clear usage context: 'Use when you need what must point to a component, party, location, or resource,' and notes that it catches prop/link references missed by UUID-field searches. It does not name a sibling alternative explicitly or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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