Xrefs to a structure field

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on result scope, whether references are limited to the current database, or how instance_id affects targeting. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes no behavioral context.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero padding, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than tight writing. It is concise yet leaves the caller without the information needed to build a correct request.

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 described. Still, for a tool whose only required parameter accepts a nested struct/field structure, the description omits the query shape, the multi-query capability, and any relation to its xref siblings, leaving the definition incomplete 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 50% and the key parameter 'queries' has an empty description despite accepting either a single struct/field object or an array of them. The description never explains this struct+field pairing or the polymorphic shape, so the schema's critical parameter is left undocumented by both structured data and prose.

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 and resource: retrieving cross-references to structure fields, which is distinct from the sibling xrefs_to (general address xrefs). However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with xrefs_to or xref_query, so an agent must infer the difference from the name 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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as xrefs_to or xref_query. The agent is left to guess when a field-level xref query is appropriate versus a general xref lookup.

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