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

Annotations already signal read-only and open-world hints, lowering the bar. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond the schema: it explains the tool's traversal behavior (full dependency tree), gives a typical size estimate (3-8 upstream nodes), and clarifies the default depth (2) and maximum (4). 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 description is three sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by a clear explanation, use case, and parameter defaults. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy or fluff.

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 tool is relatively simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and its key behavioral constraints. It doesn't detail the exact structure of the returned tree, but given the tool's straightforward nature and the presence of the input schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the default/max depth information already present in the schema ('Defaults to depth 2; max 4') but doesn't add substantial new meaning beyond what the schema provides. The phrase 'full dependency tree' gives some context but is not parameter-specific.

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 walks the prerequisite chain for a compliance node and returns the full dependency tree, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_node (single node retrieval) and search_nodes (search). It uses a specific verb+resource construction and explains the output at a high level.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this to plan a complete compliance posture' and notes that unlocking one node typically requires understanding 3-8 upstream nodes. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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