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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds little extra behavioral context beyond repeating the filtering options already present in the schema. It doesn't mention pagination, return shape, or any other behavioral traits.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and then listing the core filtering options. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 query tool with full schema coverage and safe annotations, the description is largely complete. However, since there is no output schema, a brief note about the returned relationship objects or pagination behavior would enhance completeness.

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 all parameters already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description mentions direction and relationship type filtering but only restates what the schema provides, adding no new semantic information.

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 fetches all relationships connected to a specific node, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('node relationships'). It also mentions the key filtering options (direction and relationship type), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like traverse_graph or search_graph_nodes.

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 when to use this tool (when you need relationships for a node) but provides no explicit comparison to alternatives. With sibling tools like traverse_graph and search_graph_nodes available, more explicit guidance on when to choose this over them would be beneficial, but the core use case is clear.

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