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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing 404 for unknown ids, 400 for invalid arguments, 503 during refresh, and that billing only occurs on a 200. It could still say more about output shape or graph size limits, but the error and payment behavior are unusually transparent.

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 compact and front-loads the core behavior before adding examples, status codes, and pricing. The pricing sentence is slightly redundant with the 'charged only for a 200' clause but remains useful.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, a representative use case, entity id format, error behavior, and payment terms. It is nearly complete, though it could clarify the returned graph's shape or whether pagination/truncation applies.

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%, including entity pattern, examples, and allowed prefixes, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description's example (protocol:morpho-blue) and entity-type note mostly repeat schema information rather than adding new semantics.

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 states a specific operation: returning everything an entity depends on transitively as a graph. The word 'transitively' distinguishes it somewhat from dependency-graph siblings, but it does not explicitly name get_dependency_graph or get_dependents as the direct or reverse alternatives.

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?

It gives a use case ('tracing what a protocol or stablecoin ultimately relies on'), which implies when to use it. However, it offers no explicit when-not guidance or comparison to sibling tools like get_dependency_graph or get_dependents.

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