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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: only two relationship types exist, results are capped at 15 and sorted by label, the true total count is shown separately, and the tool is not a relevance/similarity judgment. These caveats help an agent interpret results correctly. No contradiction with annotations.

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 longer than average but every sentence carries meaningful guidance: relationship semantics, limitations, truncation behavior, and usage context. It front-loads the core function, though some examples could be trimmed without losing value.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, one parameter, no output schema, and available sibling context, the description fully covers what an agent needs: input provenance, output shape and limits, caveats about semantic relevance, and when to use an alternative. Nothing critical is missing.

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% and the schema already documents id as 'an entry id from a prior query_knowhow or list_by_type result.' The description reinforces this provenance and clarifies what kind of id is expected, adding a small amount of value beyond the schema without needing to repeat format details.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'returns other entries that share at least one tag or the same content provider.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from query_knowhow's similarity search and names the prior tools that produce the input id, so an agent can clearly understand what this tool does.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('what else is connected to X', 'what did they do that relates to this...'), explicitly contrasts with query_knowhow's similarity search, and gives an actionable alternative ('call list_by_type on that type if you need the full set') when results are truncated. This is exemplary routing guidance.

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