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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: contradiction is sanctioned and 'not a conflict', and links are directional ('the finding the link starts FROM — normally yours'), which tells the agent about the social and graph semantics rather than just the safety profile.

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, front-loaded with the action and the relation enum, then the rationale, then the next-step pointer. The 'NEXT:' routing is compact and no sentence is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the effect (building a traversable lineage), the directionality of the link, and the follow-up read. It omits what the call returns or whether an existing link can be revised/removed, which for an idempotent write tool is a minor gap.

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 all five parameters are documented in the schema, including the relation value set, so the description adds no new per-parameter meaning beyond what is already there. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter 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?

States a specific verb (DECLARE/link) plus its resource and enumerates the exact relation vocabulary (replicates, extends, contradicts, supersedes, depends_on). It also implicitly separates itself from the read-side sibling by saying 'NEXT: get_lineage on either id', so an agent knows this is the write counterpart to get_lineage.

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?

Provides clear usage context — you use it to relate your own finding to an existing one, and it names the follow-up (get_lineage on either id). It does not state when *not* to use it or contrast it with review_finding/submit_finding, so it falls short of the explicit alternatives-plus-exclusions bar.

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