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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the non-obvious fact that FORMULA edges are derived on load and therefore not present in this list. It does not mention pagination or response format, but the most important behavioral caveat is disclosed.

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 one tight sentence that front-loads the tool's scope and then states the critical exclusion. Every word earns its place, with no redundant phrasing or restating of the title.

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?

The description captures the key domain rule about manual versus formula edges, but it leaves the four optional parameters completely unexplained and there is no output schema to clarify the return shape. For a list tool with no annotations and no parameter documentation, an agent still lacks enough context to know how filtering works.

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 schema provides zero parameter descriptions, and the description adds no meaning for id, toId, fromId, or edgeType. The parenthetical merely repeats the enum values already present in the schema, so an agent cannot tell whether these parameters are filters, identifiers, or something else.

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 names a specific operation ('List edges') and immediately scopes it to 'Manual lineage edges only (SOURCE/FLOW/INTERFACE)', which clearly distinguishes it from any generic edge listing. It also explicitly explains that FORMULA edges are not stored, so there is no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 clearly indicates when this tool is appropriate: for manual lineage edges, not derived FORMULA edges. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative for retrieving formula edges, but the context makes the boundary clear.

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