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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses substantive behavior: the returned edge shape (quote and page), direction-dependent fields, newest-first ordering for 'in' edges, the condition under which target_document_id appears, and the legal caveat that an amendment edge is evidence of a change rather than a statement of current law. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The definition is front-loaded with a one-line purpose, then clusters parameters, then output details and caveat. It is dense but not bloated; each clause adds a distinct fact needed to call the tool correctly.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly, naming the fields for both directions, defaults, constraints, and a semantic caveat. An agent has everything needed to construct a correct invocation and interpret the result.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates: it defines direction values and their meaning, enumerates all relation values, caps limit at 100, and identifies the document_id target through the 'this document' framing. Every parameter gains actionable meaning.

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 opening sentence states the exact resource and action: what a document cites, amends or repeals, and the inverse direction. This makes it immediately distinguishable from the sibling content-retrieval tools (fetch, read, search) because it is explicitly about citation edges.

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 explicit selection guidance for direction ('out' vs 'in'), relation narrowing, and the limit cap, and it tells the agent to follow a target_document_id with fetch or read. It does not, however, explicitly contrast citations with search/catalog/documents for finding documents, so the when-not-to-use guidance is only partial.

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