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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only/idempotent/non-destructive; the description adds behavior beyond that by specifying it returns published relationships only, enumerates returned fields (role, dates, currency, confidence, evidence class, source) and includes same_as links across graphs. No contradictory claims.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by output content and same_as behavior. The relationship-type list and field list are substantive, not filler.

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 description suffices for basic invocation with the required dfx_id and gives a good picture of return content, but it leaves optional parameters (limit, rel_type, current_only) undocumented and has no output schema. For a 4-parameter tool this is a clear gap, though not fatal for the primary use case.

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 only 25% (dfx_id is documented). The description indirectly identifies dfx_id as the entity and lists example relationship types that may map to rel_type, but it does not explain limit, rel_type, or current_only semantics. With low schema coverage the description needed to compensate and only partially does.

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 names the exact operation ('search relationships'), the scope ('every published relationship touching one entity'), the relationship types, and the fields returned. It also notes same_as links, which distinguishes it from sibling search/get tools.

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 establishes a clear use case: retrieve all published relationships for one entity. It does not explicitly name alternatives like relationship_path or get_entity, so it falls short of the explicit when-not/alternative guidance needed for a 5.

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