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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the 'both directions' semantics and the incompleteness of 'voted' edges for counting purposes, which is genuinely useful behavioral context. But it says nothing about pagination/interaction with limit, permissions, or the shape of the response, leaving gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by predicate values and the voting caveat. No filler. Slightly dense but every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. But with 4 parameters at 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the description should cover more; it leaves 'limit' (pagination behavior) and the id format undocumented, which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It successfully documents 'kind' (actor vs document), 'predicate' with a rich list of example values (member_of, authored, voted, etc.), and ties id to the entity. However it never explains 'limit' (default 50) or the integer id format, so compensation is partial.

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 resource and scope: relations of an actor (kind='actor') or document (kind='document'). It goes further by noting relations are returned 'in beide Richtungen' (both directions), which is a concrete behavioral detail. It's clearly the relation-lookup tool among siblings, though it doesn't sharply differentiate itself from get_actor/get_document beyond the voting caveat.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not-to-use rule: for vote results, do not count individual 'voted' edges, use get_document or get_vorgang instead, because only those contain all votes. That names alternatives and a selecting condition. It doesn't, however, state when to prefer get_relations over get_actor or get_document in general cases.

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