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

With no annotations, description carries the burden. It discloses that only direct neighbors are returned, not transitive ones, and that relationship type and direction are included. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'list' but does not cover potential edge cases or performance implications.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and zero waste. Every clause adds value—scope, object types, and output details.

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?

Without an output schema, the description appropriately mentions output aspects (relationship type and direction). It does not list all response fields but enough for a basic understanding. A tiny gap is lack of example usage or mention of the default limit, but the schema covers limit.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema; it merely echoes that 'name' refers to an object. Limited role in parameter clarity is acceptable given schema completeness.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'List the knowledge-graph neighbours of an object' with explicit object types (programs, tables, views, procedures) and relationship details. Distinguishes from siblings like lookup_* and path_between by focusing on direct neighbors.

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?

Description conveys clear context: use this to discover directly connected objects. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., path_between for paths), missing the 'exclusions' that would earn a 5.

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