bubble_find_orphans

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

The annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about sampling records and checking reference fields, which goes beyond the schema and annotations by explaining the tool's operational approach. However, it does not describe the return format or pagination.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. No filler or 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?

The description explains the core functionality and samples behavior, which is adequate for a read-only scan tool. However, since there is no output schema, the description should have clarified what the tool returns (e.g., list of orphaned references, counts, or summary) and any limitations of sampling. This gap prevents a higher score.

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%, and both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself does not add additional parameter detail beyond what's already provided, so it meets the baseline of 3 without needing to compensate.

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 ('Scans records for broken references') and clearly identifies the resource (records with foreign keys). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on orphaned foreign keys, which is unique among the listed 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?

The description provides clear context about when to use the tool (to detect broken references in records) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It implies a diagnostic/validation use case, which is enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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