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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces read-only and adds the crucial behavior of 'one graph level' expansion, clarifying that it is not recursive or all-at-once. This adds context beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, with the most critical information front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and it avoids repeating schema or annotation details.

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?

With 8 parameters and an output schema present, the description is minimal but adequate for basic use. It communicates the one-level expansion and interactive exploration context. However, it doesn't explain what optional parameters do or how the output is structured, relying on the (weak) schema descriptions. Given the complexity, a bit more context would be valuable, so it sits at the minimum viable level.

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 input schema has 8 parameters, and schema description coverage is technically 100%, but each description is a tautology like 'Value for the max edges parameter.' These descriptions provide no semantic meaning. The tool description itself mentions no parameter details, so an agent would have to infer meaning from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for parameters like 'aggregate' and 'direction'.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Read-only progressive expansion of one address by exactly one graph level'), the resource ('address relation graph'), and the scope ('exactly one graph level'). It also distinguishes from siblings by implying a contrast with requesting a larger graph, which is directly relevant to get_address_relation_graph.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this instead of requesting a larger graph when exploring interactively.' This tells the agent when to choose this tool over alternatives. It doesn't list alternative tool names, but the context is clear enough for an interactive exploration scenario.

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