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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's added value is in semantics: edge payload contents (relation, role, status, quote, source), the meaning of unresolved nodes, the depth semantics, and the crucial caveat that 'no edge means not recorded, not absent'. Rate limits and pagination are not mentioned, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by usage, then parameter notes. Dense but every sentence carries information; the chain example is slightly verbose but earns its place by illustrating traversal.

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, so the description carries the return-shape burden, which it does by describing nodes, edges and their fields. It is complete for a three-parameter read tool; only failure modes (e.g. unknown product id) are unspecified.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add meaning beyond the schema: it explains that depth counts product-to-product hops and gives tuning advice (use include_parts false at depth 2+), but it repeats the 0–3 default-1 range verbatim.

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 states a specific verb and resource — it returns the network around a product as nodes and edges — and enumerates edge types (connected products, organizations, materials, parts), distinguishing it from siblings like get_product or product_parts which return single entities.

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 a concrete usage scenario ('follow a chain: vehicle -> stage -> engine -> part -> material -> supplier') with an example call, and advises include_parts false at depth 2+. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use for a shallow single-entity lookup instead, so an exclusion statement is missing.

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