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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and destructive=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the semantics of echo, related, and cross-domain links, and gives a concrete example. It does not contradict any annotation and enriches the agent's understanding of the output.

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 moderately long but not wasteful. It explains the link types and provides an example, which is useful context. It is front-loaded with the main action and stays on-topic.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by describing the concept of related signals and the reason per link. It does not detail the exact response structure, but for a simple graph-following tool the explanation is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 both parameters (correlation_id and limit) are already documented. The description does not add any parameter-specific details, so it does not exceed the baseline for high coverage.

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 action (follow the link graph) and the resource (signals), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_signal or get_latest_signals by focusing on relatedness. It also explains the different link types, 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 implies usage when you need signals about the same subject, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. It provides the mechanism but not explicit routing guidance.

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