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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile does not need repeating. The description adds one behavioral detail—that the result communicates what was filtered out—though this detail is ambiguous and not elaborated.

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 a single efficient sentence with the core noun phrase front-loaded. The trailing clause 'with what was filtered out' earns its place but is slightly ambiguous and could be clearer without adding length.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, annotations already carry much of the safety context. Still, the description lacks usage guidance and parameter meaning, and it gives no hint about graph structure or how 'filtered out' is represented.

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 0%, and the description never mentions the only parameter (limit) or its default of 150. An agent must rely entirely on the bare schema label 'Limit' to infer the parameter's meaning.

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 specific resource (assets) and a distinctive relationship (co-mention), so an agent can tell this tool is about which assets are discussed together. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as get_correlation or get_narrative_clusters, but the 'co-mention graph' concept is reasonably self-identifying.

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?

No sentence states when to use this tool or when to prefer an alternative. The sibling list is large and none are referenced, so routing depends entirely on the implicit meaning of 'co-mention graph' rather than explicit guidance.

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