Find credential usage

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description reveals important behaviors: unresolved legacy references are 'counted but never matched,' coverage completeness depends on nextCursor, and the response is bounded with omission counts. It also discloses permission requirements. No contradiction with 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?

The description is concise (~70 words) and front-loaded: it states the core purpose first, then packs pagination, legacy behavior, usage context, permission, and result shape into a tight paragraph. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 the tool's pagination complexity, permission requirements, and legacy-reference edge case, the description covers all essential operational aspects. It explains how to paginate, when coverage is complete, what counts as unmatched, and the expected output nature ('bounded workflow/node matches and omission counts'), while the output schema handles return structure details.

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 schema already covers all parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds critical context: credentialId is described as the stable ID from n8n_credentials_list or get, and pagination semantics are clarified (omit cursor for first page, keep other params stable with nextCursor). This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Scan one workflow page for exact references to a credential.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by targeting credential usage, and explicitly ties it to pre-update/delete checks (e.g., 'Use this before update/delete'), setting it apart from credential CRUD and workflow search 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?

Provides direct usage guidance: 'Omit cursor for page one; keep credentialId, active, and limit unchanged when passing nextCursor' and 'Use this before update/delete.' It also states a prerequisite permission ('Requires workflow-list permission') and explains when coverage is complete ('only when nextCursor is null'). This is explicit, actionable guidance.

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