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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool retrieves neighbor connections and lists the types of relationships. It implies a read operation but does not mention side effects, which is acceptable for a data retrieval tool.

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 succinct sentences: first defines the tool's function, second provides usage guidance. No extraneous information, perfectly front-loaded.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and data scope. It lacks details on return format or pagination, but for a simple graph query, it is reasonably 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 single parameter 'address' is not explicitly described in text, but the context of 'agent' and the Ethereum address pattern in the schema make it clear. For 0% schema coverage, this is adequate but not exemplary.

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 graphs neighbors of an agent, listing specific interaction types (messaged, upvoted, tipped, endorsed) and reciprocals, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like lawbor_profile or lawbor_peer_trust.

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?

Explicitly advises using the tool to map an agent's working relationships before trusting it, providing clear usage context. It doesn't specify when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient.

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