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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: results include stale/no-longer-current relations and a structural root link, which tells the agent the payload is broader than just live edges. Return shape/pagination is not described, but no output schema exists to absorb that.

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?

Front-loads the scope and the distinguishing detail (historical relations, NEXUS link), then gives the alternative in one clause and the argument definition. No filler sentences.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description tells the agent exactly what set of relations comes back and when to prefer the sibling. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 0% and the lone parameter is documented only as a plain string, so the description's 'UUID of the entity' adds real semantic value about the identifier format. It is a single required parameter, so there is little else to clarify.

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?

States a specific verb (return) and resource (every relation attached to an entity), and precisely defines scope: outgoing and incoming, including superseded relations and the NEXUS root link. An agent can distinguish it from get_entity_neighbors or query_world_model without opening any schema.

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 routes the agent: this tool for the full relation history, 'For current state only, use query_world_model.' Names the alternative and the condition that selects it, so nothing is left to inference.

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