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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, so the description adds valuable behavioral context by defining how traversal works: each edge carries a link reason, and echo/related/cross-domain links have distinct semantics. The example also conveys that linked signals may come from independent providers.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently defines the three link types. The seismic-record/news-headline example adds helpful intuition but is slightly longer than strictly necessary for invoking the tool.

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 read-only graph traversal tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context to select and invoke it. It explains the meaning of link categories and the starting point, though it does not explicitly cover what happens when no related signals exist.

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 covers both parameters thoroughly: correlation_id accepts full ids, short handles, and aliases, while limit documents its default and maximum. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 names a specific action, resource, and scope: follow the link graph from one signal to other signals about the same subject. It clearly differentiates from likely siblings like get_signal and get_latest_signals by focusing on traversing semantic links rather than fetching or listing signals.

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 makes clear that this tool is appropriate when you already have a signal correlation id and want other signals about the same subject through link traversal. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is strong enough to route an agent toward it.

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