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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the substantive behavioral trait that lineage is transitive and contamination propagates across links. It stops short of saying how deep traversal goes or how large a result may be returned, but that is a modest gap given annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences with clear front-loading: what it returns, why it matters, and the logical next step. No sentence is redundant with the name or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return semantics as two directional edge sets, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. It omits whether traversal is bounded or how deep the walk goes, which 'three links downstream' only hints at.

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?

One required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Finding id.'), so the schema carries the burden and the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, prefix, or identifier-source detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Read how one finding stands to the others') and then defines both edge directions ('what it was built on and what has been built on it'). This cleanly distinguishes it from get_finding (single finding) and link_findings (a write) in the sibling list.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('Call this before you rely on a result') backed by a reason (downstream findings inherit a contradiction), and names the alternative sibling for the write case ('NEXT: link_findings to declare your own relation'). The agent knows both when to call it and what to call instead for mutation.

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