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

With no annotations the description carries the full safety/behavior burden, and it does disclose a good deal: a read operation (GET), result ordering ('in id order'), null-score semantics, and pagination behavior. It omits any explicit statement of side effects, auth needs, or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with the endpoint front-loaded and no filler. The first sentence is dense with return-format detail, but every clause carries meaning and 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?

For a paginated list tool with an output schema, the essentials are covered: result shape, ordering, limit bounds, and cursor-based paging. Nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing, though it adds no info about auth or defaults beyond the schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: limit is bounded (1 to 1024) and cursor is defined as the last id for the next page. nid is only implied via the path template rather than explained, so a small gap remains.

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 pairs a specific verb/resource (GET /nodes/{nid}/edges) with a concrete definition of what an edge contains (the found node's id and score). This clearly separates it from get_edge (singular) and list_nodes. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling tools, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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?

It provides actionable pagination guidance ('for the next page, pass the last id as cursor') and states the valid limit range, which is genuine usage help. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_edge or list_nodes, leaving the tool-vs-tool decision implied.

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