find_field_usage

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. Description adds caching behavior ('operates over the cached verbose corpus, no extra HTTP unless refresh: true') and return structure. Good but doesn't explain potential side effects of refresh, though minimal.

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 with the main action, uses bold for emphasis, and each sentence adds necessary info without redundancy. Concise yet comprehensive.

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?

Despite no output schema, description adequately explains return values. All parameters are covered, caching behavior is described, and usage context is given. No missing critical information.

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 coverage is 100%. Description adds valuable context beyond schema: for field_id, 'The numeric portion is what gets matched'; for refresh, 'Bypass cache and re-fetch'; for instance, 'Override the sticky instance for this call'.

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 clearly states the tool finds every reference to a custom ticket field across multiple entity types (triggers, automations, etc.), specifies return format ('references' with 'why_matched' and 'reference_count'), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'audit_field_health'.

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 explicitly states the use case: 'The right tool for "is it safe to delete this field?"' and advises when to use an alternative: 'For a full field-hygiene report ... use audit_field_health instead.'

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