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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context: the graph is 'Live', sourced from 'the dataset', contains 825+ edges, and costs $0.010 USDC per query for external callers. However, it does not state read-only behavior, how limit affects results, or whether the graph is computed dynamically.

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 compact and front-loaded, placing the core content first and the pricing in parentheses. No unnecessary words; every segment adds relevant information.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the core resource content is present. However, the missing usage guidance and unclear `limit` semantics mean an agent only has partial information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 one parameter, `limit`, with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention `limit` at all, leaving unclear whether it applies to edges, nodes, relationships, 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 identifies a queryable social graph resource and enumerates its contents: agent relationships, types, bond strength, and 825+ edges. This distinguishes it from sibling data_* tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'return'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as data_agents, data_catalog, or chat_with_agent. The pricing note targets external HTTP callers but does not help an agent decide when to select this tool.

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