Generic xref query

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Query' is consistent with that, so no contradiction. But everything the description mentions (direction/type filters, pagination) is already present in the schema field descriptions, so it adds no behavioral context beyond structured data. With annotations acting as a lower bar, this still contributes essentially nothing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient density.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the rich schema covers the nested query object. What is missing is sibling disambiguation for a crowded xref/query tool family, which the schema cannot supply. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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%, with each nested field (addr, count, offset, direction, xref_type, etc.) documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates 'direction/type filters and pagination' without adding syntax, defaults, or semantics beyond the schema.

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 verb (query) and resource (xrefs), which is clear enough on its own. However, it is a 'generic' xref query sitting alongside several sibling xref tools (xrefs_to, xrefs_to_field, callgraph, insn_query), and the description makes no attempt to distinguish itself from them. An agent cannot tell which xref tool to reach for from the text alone.

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 / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. For a tool whose siblings include xrefs_to and xrefs_to_field, the absence of any routing hint is a meaningful gap. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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