Cross references to an address

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: results are capped per target and a truncation flag signals when output was clipped. That cap-and-flag behavior is exactly the kind of detail an agent needs to interpret partial results.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the core action and adds the truncation caveat without filler. Nothing is wasted.

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 present and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to convey scope and the truncation caveat, which it does. It could note the 'to' vs 'from' distinction versus siblings, but otherwise it is adequate for correct invocation.

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%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema (including the default/max on limit and the instance_id fallback). The description's mention of capping aligns with limit but adds no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Return xrefs to address(es) or named symbols'), making it clear this is a reverse-reference lookup keyed on targets. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like xref_query or xrefs_to_field, but the 'to' direction is distinguishable.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description rather than spelled out; there is no explicit 'use this when' or guidance on choosing between this and xref_query/xrefs_to_field. An agent must infer from naming which direction of reference it wants.

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