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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: what 'precedents' vs 'dependents' mean and that depth controls transitive traversal. It does not describe response shape or pagination, but the read-only safety profile is already covered by 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?

One compact, front-loaded sentence defines the core operation, explains the two directions, provides a familiar analogy, and points to scoping parameters. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

The description covers selection and invocation needs: the graph type, both direction semantics, and how to scope depth and direction. All four parameters are fully documented in the schema, and the read-only annotations cover the safety profile, so the absence of an output schema is a minor gap.

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 100%, and the description mostly restates parameter behavior ('Use depth for transitive walks and direction to scope') that the schema already documents. The description adds no new parameter syntax or hidden constraints, so the baseline score 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Trace an item's dependency graph') and defines both conceptual halves: 'precedents' and 'dependents'. The Excel analogy reinforces the operation, and no sibling tool targets dependency relationships, so it is clearly distinguishable.

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 conveys when to use the tool: for dependency tracing, with explicit pointers to `depth` for transitive walks and `direction` for scoping. It does not name alternative tools or when-not-to-use cases, but no sibling offers the same function, so the context is clear enough.

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