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

Annotations cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description adds real context beyond them: links are team-visible, attributed to the caller, and re-teaching refreshes rather than duplicates. It does not discuss failure modes (e.g., to_repository off-team) beyond the schema's 'Must be on the same team.'

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then relations, then triggers, then behavioral notes. Every clause earns its place, though the parenthetical definitions add some length that could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation; the description still covers relation semantics, when to call, team binding, visibility, and refresh behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic depth to the enum: depends_on as 'consumes that one — an SDK, package, or service,' ships_with as coupled changes, unrelated as suppressing derived connections. This meaningfully exceeds the terse enum descriptions.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Teach the team's org map how two repositories relate.' It names the downstream consumer (get-team-context) and defines the four relation types, so it is unmistakable against siblings like set-up-repository-tool or deploy-repository-tool.

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?

Explicit trigger conditions: 'when you discover a relationship the map is missing, or when the user tells you how repos fit together,' plus the refresh semantics of re-teaching an edge. It lacks an explicit when-not or a named alternative, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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