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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false), but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: confirmation statuses, the special treatment of rejected links, and the cost/API-key requirement. It stops short of describing pagination or complete auth behavior, but it goes well beyond the 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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then adds the confirmation-status nuance and rejected-link distinction before closing with cost/auth. Sentences are efficient, though the parenthetical cost/API-key note is slightly tacked on.

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 an output schema available, the description need not explain return values, and it adds key semantics about the special visibility of rejected links plus cost/auth. The main remaining gap is parameter-level detail, especially entity_id, but overall it gives enough context for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does list entity types ('event, trip, place, or person'), which partially clarifies the entity_type parameter, but it says nothing about entity_id format or constraints, leaving a significant gap for both parameters.

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: 'List graph edges' for an event, trip, place, or person. This distinguishes it from generic graph tools, but it does not explicitly contrast with close siblings such as get_people_links or get_life_graph.

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?

Implies when to use it by noting that rejected links are listed here but omitted by 'every other read,' which gives the agent a reason to choose this tool for rejected-link records. However, it names no alternative tools and gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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