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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine behavioral disclosure beyond them: it explains what explicit_cross_references are sourced from, and that inferred_adjacent is currently limited to same-suite siblings rather than semantic similarity. That limitation is exactly the kind of non-obvious caveat an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed immediately by the field semantics and the caveat. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description effectively documents the return shape by naming explicit_cross_references and inferred_adjacent and explaining their provenance. It stops short of covering error behavior for an invalid id or what an empty result means, but the core call path is complete.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It explains include_inferred well (its effect and its current limitation), which is the more confusing of the two parameters, but the required `id` parameter is never defined — the agent must infer from "for a pattern" that it is a pattern identifier.

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 and resource ("Return outgoing adjacencies for a pattern") and even names the two returned collections. The word "outgoing" implicitly separates it from the sibling get_reverse_references, but that tool is never named, so the differentiation must be inferred.

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?

It gives real interpretive guidance for the output ("Treat inferred entries as 'neighbours worth scanning,' not as endorsed dependencies") and ties include_inferred to the inferred branch. However, it never states when to call this versus get_reverse_references or search_patterns, so the routing decision is left implicit.

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