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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context: default depth 2, max 4, and typical output size (3-8 nodes). It doesn't mention pagination or return format, but with open-world hint and simple params, this is adequate.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Each sentence provides distinct value: what it does, why to use it, and operational limits.

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 two-parameter tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it states behavior, use case, depth behavior, and typical scale. No critical gaps remain.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces max_depth defaults but adds little beyond the schema's own descriptions. The schema already explains node_id and max_depth fully.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Walk the prerequisite chain for a compliance node' and 'returns its full dependency tree.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like get_node or browse_topics.

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 provides clear context: 'Use this to plan a complete compliance posture' and explains the typical need ('unlocking one node usually requires understanding 3-8 upstream nodes'). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient.

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