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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), but the description adds genuine semantic context beyond them: edges are "explicit," traversal is "descriptive only," and it explicitly disclaims inference of truth, causation, importance or authority. That is a meaningful guardrail for an agent interpreting results, though it says nothing about result size, ordering, or empty-neighbourhood behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. The traversal capability is front-loaded, the relation filter follows, and the semantic-limits caveat closes. Each sentence earns its place by adding a distinct fact.

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 4-parameter read-only traversal with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it fixes the scope, the filter, and the interpretation limits. It would be complete with one line on what an edge result looks like (the fact that limit counts edges, not nodes) since no output schema exists to carry that.

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 direction enum values, the relation filter, and the limit bound are already fully documented in the schema. The description mirrors the direction options and the relation-narrowing behavior but adds no format, syntax, or defaulting detail beyond what the schema states (the schema itself notes direction defaults to both). Baseline 3.

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 ("traverse") and resource ("incoming, outgoing or bidirectional edges around one exact canonical graph node"), plus the optional relation filter. The scope language distinguishes it from node-fetch or search siblings by implication, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it lands just short of a 5.

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: this is the tool you reach for when you want the neighbourhood of a known node ID. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of knowledge_graph_node, knowledge_graph_search, or commons_relations as alternatives, and no prerequisite guidance (e.g. that node_id must be an existing canonical ID).

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