Code→requirement anchors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses the 200-link cap and that the output includes problems, both concrete operational facts not present in the annotations. It does not state ordering or what happens when the cap truncates results.

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?

Compact — one dense sentence plus a short trailing clause. The payload enumeration is front-loaded. The opening CLI-equivalence reference costs a little reader effort without adding MCP-relevant information, but nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the fields returned. It also flags the result cap. Missing only pagination/truncation behavior and output ordering, which would matter for a capped listing tool.

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 file, spec, and projectDir are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameter interaction (e.g. whether file and spec combine as AND filters) or defaults beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource (code→requirement anchor links) and enumerates the payload shape: each @implements/@req tag, the resolved requirement, the anchored file/symbol/statement/route, the resolving tier, and problems. It is clearly a listing tool and distinct from siblings like docguard_verify_claims or docguard_explain. It stops short of an explicit verb-first statement, opening with a CLI-equivalence clause instead.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the eleven sibling tools. The agent must infer from the description alone whether this is for auditing, tracing, or debugging. Only the read-only/bounded note hints at context.

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