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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only partially does. It mentions both incoming and outgoing dependencies, yet fails to mention that includeIncoming defaults to false, so default behavior returns only outgoing relationships—contradicting the 'including both' phrasing. Pagination behavior, response shape, and read-only nature are also undisclosed. This is a significant transparency gap for a 6-parameter 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?

The description is two sentences with a strong front-loaded verb-object structure. The second sentence adds practical value by naming use cases. There is no redundant wording, tautology, or filler. It earns a 5 for being efficient and purposeful.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must carry substantial weight. It does not explain pagination semantics, the meaning of callerTag, the effect of setting both boolean flags to false, or what the returned dependencies look like. The phrase 'List all dependencies' is also incomplete given the default to outgoing-only. This is not enough context for an agent to invoke the tool reliably without additional assumptions.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate for callerTag, includeIncoming, and includeOutgoing. It adds conceptual meaning for the boolean flags ('incoming' and 'outgoing') but does not clarify their defaults or how to request both directions. It also omits callerTag entirely and doesn't explain the 'all' claim in light of pagination defaults. The description actually misleads by implying both directions are always included.

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 uses a specific verb-object pair ('List all dependencies for an entity') and clearly distinguishes incoming vs outgoing relationships. It separates this from sibling tools like getDependency, which implies a single relationship, and provides a clear domain purpose. The use cases ('understanding service interactions, planning changes, and assessing blast radius') reinforce why this tool exists.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: understanding interactions, planning changes, and assessing blast radius. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios or state when not to use it, but the use-case framing is specific enough to guide selection among the large sibling list. A 4 is appropriate because exclusions/alternatives aren't stated.

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