find_operations_using_schema

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the annotation already covers safety. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: each row includes a referenced_in list and reference resolution is limited to the indexed OpenAPI document. This gives the agent insight into the tool's dependency-cluster behavior and its scope limitation.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. Every clause adds meaning: what the tool returns, what each row includes, and the scope limitation.

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 simple read-only query tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description explains the core return shape (referenced_in list) and the applicable scope. It does not describe pagination or error cases, but those are not essential for a tool of this simplicity.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies schema_name as 'the given schema' and hints that repo refers to the indexed OpenAPI document, but it never explicitly defines repo or its expected format. The two parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the lack of direct parameter descriptions is a noticeable gap.

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 and resource: 'Return every operation whose request body or any response references the given schema.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like get_schema_graph or find_endpoint by focusing on operations that use a schema and by noting the referenced_in dependency list.

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 gives implicit context through 'inside the indexed OpenAPI document only,' which sets a scope boundary. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_schema_graph or find_endpoint, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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