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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns all outgoing and incoming edge types, is backed by a pre-computed index with O(1) lookup, and avoids vector scan. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey. It could mention pagination/limits behavior, but the coverage is strong.

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 dense and well-structured, front-loading the WHEN and trigger phrases. It includes multilingual trigger examples that add length but also practical value for an agent. Slightly longer than strictly necessary, yet every sentence contributes either usage guidance, output scope, performance context, or fallback routing.

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 complexity, the full schema coverage, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, why it is fast, when to prefer it, and when to use the fallback. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because the description explains the shape of results at a high level.

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 100%, so the schema carries the documentation burden for all three parameters. The description does not add much parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, though it reinforces that objectName should be a known object name and that edge kinds can be filtered. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's specific purpose: retrieving the COMPLETE bidirectional relation graph for an object in one call. It clearly distinguishes itself from find_related_objects by being faster and more complete for known object names, and lists concrete trigger phrases like 'relations of' and 'foreign keys'.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance, including trigger phrases and a strong directive to ALWAYS call this before generating code touching multiple objects. It also names the alternative (find_related_objects) and specifies the exact condition for using it: when the relation index is not yet built.

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