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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that results are 'directly recorded', 'bidirectional', grouped by game, and distinct from similarity or ownership evidence. This meaningfully characterizes the tool's behavior beyond the schema. It omits potential edge-case behaviors like failure modes or rate limits, but for a read-only fetch this is reasonably transparent.

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?

Three tightly written sentences, each earning its place: what the tool finds, what it returns, and how it differs from other tools. The key differentiating caveat is placed at the end without bloating the description.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return structure well: related games, developers, appearance information, representative references, and grouping by game. Combined with the fully documented input schema, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly. Slightly more detail on interpreting 'relative appearance days' or 'representative material references' would improve completeness.

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 the schema already documents both parameters effectively. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it only reinforces that the input is a 'creative material_reference'. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 ('Find'), a specific resource ('directly recorded reuse relationships for a creative material_reference'), and lists exact returned fields. It also distinguishes itself from similarity-based tools by explicitly saying it is 'not vector similarity or proof of ownership', which differentiates it from siblings like get_similar_materials_v2.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when direct, bidirectional reuse relationships are needed. The negative clause 'not vector similarity or proof of ownership' provides a useful exclusion. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exact conditions for when to choose them, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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