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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: with articleSlug, direct evidence is separated from related content via host/source/dataset relationships. There is 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 two concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is stated first, followed by the key conditional behavior, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 rich annotations, complete parameter descriptions, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral and scoping information. The main gap is the lack of usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but for a read-only graph retrieval tool with no required parameters, the definition is largely 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?

The input schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description adds semantic value by explaining the behavioral effect of articleSlug: separating direct evidence from indirectly related content, which goes beyond the schema's 'voisinage de graphe' phrasing.

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 clearly states the tool returns an evidence subgraph and enumerates the node types (articles, claims, references, hosts, primary sources, datasets). It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like get_article or get_claims, but the graph-specific framing is clear enough for basic identification.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_article, get_claims, or search_by_topic. The only conditional statement concerns articleSlug behavior, which is a parameter detail rather than usage guidance.

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