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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that as_of restricts results to relationships holding on that date, but it does not cover ordering, result shape, or other retrieval behavior.

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-loaded, with the core listing behavior stated first and the use case second. The long relation enumeration is somewhat redundant with the schema enum, but it remains readable and purposeful.

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?

Because an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description does not need to explain return values. However, for a four-parameter relationship query, it leaves from/to semantics and sibling-tool routing implicit, which keeps it at minimum viable rather than fully complete.

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 only 25%, so the description needs to compensate. It does explain as_of semantics well and names all four filters, but it does not clarify the meaning or expected format of from and to beyond their names, and the relation list largely duplicates the enum.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: it lists typed relationships between objects. It also enumerates the relationship types, which makes the tool distinguishable in substance, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling evidence tools.

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 one concrete use case: finding what limits or supersedes a rule. That is helpful implied guidance, but there are no explicit when-not rules, prerequisites, or named alternatives among search_evidence, get_evidence, resolve_citation, or build_evidence_packet.

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