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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description explains that topics mode returns shared_topics, links depth=1 returns direct links such as works, groups, and videos, and depth=2 returns records connected through a shared neighbour ranked by shared link count. It adds meaningful behavioral context, though it does not fully describe the return shape or pagination 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 purpose, then moves directly into mode-specific and depth-specific behavior. Every sentence carries useful information, and the examples are efficient rather than verbose.

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 six-parameter exploration tool with annotations covering safety and a schema covering every parameter, the description supplies enough behavioral detail for an agent to choose between links and topics and to understand depth=1 versus depth=2. It is slightly incomplete on return shape and how lang, limit, and types affect results, but those are documented in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameters, but the description adds meaningful semantics for the key parameters via and depth, including defaults and concrete depth=2 ranking behavior. It does not elaborate on lang, limit, or types beyond the schema, but it substantially clarifies the most consequential parameters.

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 that this retrieves records connected to a given record and distinguishes the two connection modes, links and topics. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as artlist-get or artlist-search, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 clear conditions for choosing via="topics" versus via="links" and explains what depth means in the links mode with concrete examples. It does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of sibling retrieval or search tools, so usage guidance is strong but not complete.

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