Follow xrefs across multiple hops

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral context: the semantics of 'forward' vs 'backward', the per-node return contents (function name, instruction, code-vs-data), and the depth bound (default 5, max 20). It doesn't discuss auth, rate limits, or truncation on deep traversals, so it stops short of the top score.

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?

Tight, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then direction semantics, then the use case, then the exclusion, then the depth constraint. No filler or repetition.

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 an output schema and read-only annotation already present, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces — traversal direction meaning, use-case framing, and the callgraph exclusion — leaving nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds interpretation beyond the raw schema — explaining what 'forward'/'backward' mean in terms of data-flow direction and surfacing the max_depth ceiling of 20 that the schema's description omits.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('follow cross-references from or to an address, automatically traversing multiple hops') and explicitly distinguishes itself from callgraph. An agent can tell what it does and how it differs from xrefs_to/callgraph without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('when you find an interesting string, constant, or global and want to understand every code path that touches it') and an explicit when-not ('Do not use for call graph traversal — use callgraph for that'), naming the alternative sibling directly.

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