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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the lower bar applies. The description adds meaningful domain context beyond that: relations are 'signed' and 'evidence-linked', and contested status is a first-class concept. It omits pagination/return-size behavior, but the offset parameter's schema description partly covers that.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the first defines the resource with an illustrative example, the second enumerates the filtering surface. Front-loaded and information-dense.

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 an eight-parameter, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description conveys what a result represents and the full filter surface. The absence of output-shape detail is acceptable given no output schema is declared, though the 'contested' and strength-code concepts could be elaborated slightly more.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 50%, the description must compensate, and it does: it explains the semantics of entity (either end), source, target, effect, contested status, and minimum strength of best supporting evidence, mapping to six of the eight parameters. It does not clarify the effect enum values or the strength-code ordering, but the schema carries those.

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 a specific resource ('signed, evidence-linked pathway relations') with a concrete example claim ('Rheb activates mTORC1'), making the returned data type unambiguous. It distinguishes itself functionally from siblings like get_relation and evidence_between via the multi-filter framing, but never names an alternative explicitly, which is the only gap.

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 list of filterable dimensions ('entity on either end, by source/target, effect, contested status or minimum strength') implies how to query but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to sibling tools like get_relation or find_contradictions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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