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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are not paged, explains parameter dependencies (direction requires type), and describes the output structure (lists with forms and reading). It doesn't explicitly state the operation is read-only, but the name and context strongly imply it, so this is a minor gap.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It opens with the core purpose, then usage and parameter semantics, then output and pagination. Every sentence adds value and is well-ordered.

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 tool with 3 optional parameters and an output schema present, the description is complete: purpose, usage, parameter semantics, output structure, and pagination are all covered. It also routes to the correct alternative when needed, so an agent can confidently select and invoke this tool.

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 0%, so the description must define parameters. It does: type narrows lists, direction selects one side (declares/declared-to/both) and requires type, via filters by relations and enums. This gives meaning to all three parameters, though it doesn't specify exact value formats (e.g., type names), leaving some ambiguity.

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's purpose: describing relations between types (references, ownership, enums, joins, list kinds) as declared in schemas. It explicitly differentiates itself from describe_schema for a single type's full schema, making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from siblings.

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?

It gives clear usage context ('Use for a diagram or audit') and explicitly points to describe_schema as the alternative for a single type's full schema. It also explains how parameters narrow results, but it does not mention other possibly related siblings like list_references or list_types, leaving some alternative routing implicit.

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