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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it explains that loaded relations have directionality and names, while by-content relations exist even when no relation was ever loaded, which shapes how the agent should interpret the result.

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 sentences, with the core distinction front-loaded and the practical takeaway placed last. It is efficient, though the all-caps jargon terms and dense second clause make it slightly less scannable than it could be.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does describe the two categories of returned relations. It leaves the exact response shape (field names, ordering, pagination) unspecified, which is a minor gap for a two-parameter read 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 description coverage is 100%, so entity_id and the optional workspace_id (with its fallback rule for fixed-workspace tokens) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource (an entity's relations) and goes further by distinguishing two kinds: loaded relations (incoming and outgoing, named) and by-content relations (statistical co-occurrence). This is clear and substantive. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like get_entity_details or get_entity_suggestions, so it stops short of full disambiguation.

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 through concrete example questions ('¿quién trabaja en X?', '¿con qué se relaciona X?') and a hint that by-content relations are often more informative. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no naming of alternative tools, and no statement of preconditions, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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