Who references this record?

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only dependency query'. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by describing both directions, the dangling reference flag (`exists:false`), and its relationship with the delete gate. This meaningfully extends what the annotations convey.

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 but information-dense. The first phrase 'Read-only dependency query' establishes intent upfront, and the rest explains behavior without redundancy. Every clause adds useful details: both directions, breakage semantics, examples, and use cases.

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 rich annotations, fully documented input schema, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and call this tool correctly. It explains the main use cases and the meaning of the returned fields without relying on external documentation.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both `id` and `resource`. The description adds context around the kind of record (e.g., datasource, query) but does not explain parameter specifics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('query'), a precise resource ('a record'), and clearly defines the two result categories (`dependents` and `references`) with concrete examples. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_rules or find_resource by showing exactly what the tool returns.

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 tells when to use it: before a delete/rename or to trace usage of a datasource/query. It also frames the dependents list as 'the same analysis the delete gate runs', which communicates a clear purpose and context where this tool is the right choice.

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