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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it walks exactly one hop from an id, returns both outgoing and incoming relations, and includes relation types. It does not contradict any annotation and goes beyond the annotation-only signal.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first states core behavior and output, and the second gives sequencing guidance and a sibling alternative. Every clause earns its place, with the most important information front-loaded.

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 has one simple parameter, a complete input schema, an output schema, and strong read-safe annotations. The description covers what the tool does, what it returns, when to use it, and when to use search instead. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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% and the single required id parameter is already described as 'The knowledge object to walk out from, by id.' The description reinforces that this id must already be known, but does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 names a precise operation—traversing graph neighbours by walking one hop from an object—and specifies that both outgoing and incoming relations are returned with their relation types. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling search tool by framing itself as an adjacency expansion after get_entity. This is a clear, non-tautological statement of purpose.

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 explicitly says to use this after get_entity to widen an answer with adjacent objects, and it contrasts with search by noting search is for when you have a question but no starting object. This gives an agent concrete routing guidance for when to choose this tool versus a key sibling.

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