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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the traversal follows only *explicit stored* links, is 'bounded', and returns relationship bases, citations, and missing-link gaps — plus the strong negative rule that text similarity never establishes a dependency, which prevents an agent from misreading it as semantic search.

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 with the core action front-loaded, then the return contents, then the key exclusion rule. Dense but every sentence carries information; the phrasing is jargon-heavy but not padded.

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 need not be fully specified, yet the description still summarizes them usefully. Scope, preconditions, and the semantic-similarity exclusion are covered; the only gap is that 'bounded' is never tied to the limit parameter or a concrete traversal depth.

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% for three parameters, so the description must compensate. It partially does by enumerating the entity types (board, agent/project, term), which maps directly onto the entity_type enum, but it says nothing about entity_id format or what limit controls and how 'bounded' relates to it.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it 'follow[s] bounded explicit stored links' from a board, agent/project, or term, which is a precise characterization of graph traversal rather than search. It is distinguishable from generic retrieval siblings like get_context_bundle or ask_knowledge, though it never names a specific sibling to contrast with.

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?

Usage is implied through qualifiers like 'approved board', 'accessible agent/project' and 'confirmed term', suggesting these must be pre-validated before calling. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings such as find_context_gaps, get_context_bundle, or retrieve_similar_cases, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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