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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses filtering/paging behavior and the exact return shape (edges with from, via, to, attrs, and page). The 'inspect' framing implies a read-only operation, though this is not stated explicitly.

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 efficiently structured: core behavior first, then parameter semantics, then return shape. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy.

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 6-parameter, annotation-free paginated tool, the description plus schema covers filtering options, dependencies, and response structure. The main gap is the lack of a precise definition for 'via', and read-only behavior is only implied.

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 input schema only documents limit and cursor, leaving 4 parameters undocumented. The description compensates by explaining entity, direction, direction's dependency on entity, and type's conditional meaning. 'via' is named but its semantics are somewhat implied rather than fully explained.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: listing the model's edges/references, with filtering and pagination. It also differentiates itself from fetching whole entities, which distinguishes it from get_entity/list_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?

The description gives an explicit use case: inspect one entity's relations or one kind of reference without pulling whole entities. It doesn't name sibling tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear enough.

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