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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers a genuinely important behavioral disclosure: steps from another member's private generations surface as placeholder nodes with redacted:true, job_type 'private', and no asset/prompt/command. It even instructs how to describe them. It stops short of covering auth requirements, traversal/recursion behavior, or what normal nodes return.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by the one edge case the agent must not get wrong. Efficient, though the second sentence is dense and the caveat could be split for readability.

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 2-parameter read tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the core purpose plus a non-obvious output nuance (redacted placeholder nodes). It is nearly complete; only the general return shape for ordinary nodes is left unspecified.

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 asset_id and max_depth are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., how max_depth affects traversal or default behavior), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb and resource ('Retrieve the evolution chain (parent→child lineage) for a Midjourney asset') and explains what the chain represents ('how it evolved through variations and upscales'). No sibling tool overlaps, and the domain anchor ('Midjourney asset') makes the scope unmistakable.

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 only implied: an agent can infer you call this to understand an asset's lineage, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no alternative tool named. The handling note about private steps is a formatting rule, not selection guidance.

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