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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It describes the three types of results (outbound, inbound, shared parameters) and notes potential cross-domain dependencies, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or address edge cases like pagination or large result sets.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by a concise bulleted list of return types, a clear positioning statement, and an Args section. Every sentence contributes value with no redundant content.

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 only one parameter, an output schema exists, and the description clearly explains the tool's purpose, return categories, and primary use case. It provides all necessary context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, with no significant gaps.

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?

The schema provides no description for the single parameter, but the Args section fully compensates by specifying the format (domain/subdomain/slug) and giving a concrete example. This provides complete semantic meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 first sentence uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all entries that reference or are referenced by a given entry'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_entry_parameters and read_node. It also explicitly lists the three return categories, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 states this is 'the primary tool for cross-domain consistency analysis,' giving clear contextual guidance on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where a sibling tool might be more appropriate, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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