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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that in two ways: it discloses that each result carries the reason for the connection, and it explicitly forbids inferring professional achievement from a link — a semantic guardrail the annotations cannot express.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler. The mechanism and the scope come first, and the interpretive caveat is placed last where it belongs as a qualifier rather than a lead.

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 three-parameter read-only exploration tool with annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what the tool does, how results are justified, and one important non-inference. Minor gaps remain: nothing on ordering, empty-result behavior, or how 'limit' interacts with a link graph, but these are marginal.

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 67%: 'id' and 'lang' are documented in the schema, while 'limit' has only default/min/max bounds and no description. The description adds no parameter meaning at all — no note that 'id' must come from a prior search or that 'lang' selects the edition — so it neither compensates for the gap nor enriches the documented fields.

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 ('Find') plus the resource ('posts') and the exact linkage mechanism ('explicit editorial links or shared tags'), which an agent can use to distinguish this exploratory lookup from search_content or read_content. It stops short of naming a sibling, so differentiation is by implication rather than explicit contrast.

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?

Usage is implied by the mechanism described (following links or tags from a known id), and the second sentence rules out one misuse (treating results as evidence of professional achievement). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not versus search_content, find_evidence_for_role, or read_content.

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