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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scoping, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful conceptual detail on what a traversal yields, but says nothing about response size, limits, pagination, or cost of deeper walks.

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, front-loaded with the return shape, then the parameters. No filler or redundancy.

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 usefully characterizes the returned fields (precedents/dependents), which is the key informational need. It omits mention of traversal limits, failure modes (cycles, missing uid), or scoping constraints, leaving a small gap for a graph tool with transitive walks.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates depth (1–5, transitive) and the direction enum values, largely duplicating the schema rather than adding format or edge-case detail the schema lacks.

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 specific verb and resource ('Returns an item's dependency graph') and grounds it with a concrete Excel trace-precedents analogy. No sibling tool (read, diff, history, match_items) performs dependency tracing, so an agent can identify this unambiguously.

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 implied by the Excel analogy and the direction/depth knobs, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or routing away from neighbors like layerz_read or layerz_diff. No prerequisites (e.g. model_id scoping needs) are mentioned even though the schema handles them.

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