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

Annotations already declare the operation safe, read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it explains the one-hop traversal limit ('It walks one hop from an id you already have') and the result shape (outgoing/incoming relations, each with its relation type). No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with no fluff: the first explains the core operation and result type, the second gives usage context and an alternative. Every part earns its place and the key action is front-loaded.

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 single-hop, single-parameter, read-only tool with complete schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, timing, result shape, and sibling routing. An output schema exists, so detailed return-value documentation is not required here.

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?

The schema fully documents the single 'id' parameter with 'The knowledge object to walk out from, by id.' The description reinforces that the id is an existing starting object but adds no additional format, constraints, or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opening phrase 'Graph neighbours of an object' states a specific verb and resource, and 'outgoing and incoming relations, each with its relation type' clarifies exactly what is returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search and get_entity through explicit contrasts.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use this after get_entity to widen an answer with adjacent objects' and contrasts with search: 'use search when you have a question and no starting object.' This clearly tells an agent when to select this tool over alternatives.

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