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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds 'signed, evidence-linked' and filter semantics but does not disclose pagination behavior, result size caps, or rate limits.

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?

Single dense sentence front-loads the resource and then enumerates filters. No wasted words, though the sentence is long and slightly compressed.

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 8-parameter, no-output-schema tool, description covers most filter intent but omits return shape, pagination (offset/next_offset), and the limit cap that the schema itself notes. Adequate but incomplete.

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 coverage is 63%; the description compensates by explaining filter dimensions: entity on either end, source/target, effect, contested status, minimum strength. This adds meaningful grouping and intent beyond raw parameter names, though it doesn't clarify the enum codes or limit cap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource with a concrete example ("Rheb activates mTORC1") that disambiguates it from siblings like get_relation and evidence_between. The description makes clear this is a searchable, filtered list of relations.

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?

Community guidelines are described (filter by entity, source/target, effect, contested status, strength), which implies when to use it, but no explicit when-to-use vs get_relation or evidence_between. No exclusions or alternatives named.

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