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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it discloses the return shape (links grouped by type) and the citation mechanism (each link carries an Lxxxx id to cite), which is the kind of context an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the return-shape information is front-loaded ahead of the filtering note. Slightly telegraphic phrasing ('One node with its description, conditions, source, level') but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the fields and the link grouping/citation scheme. The remaining gap is the meaning of some parameters and node fields, but for a low-risk read tool this is close to sufficient.

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 only 20% (only lang is documented), so the description has to compensate. It names link_types, direction, and limit and frames them all as filters, which clarifies intent, but it leaves 'id' and the direction semantics (in/out/both) unexplained, so coverage remains partial.

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 resource and its payload: one node plus description, conditions, source, level, and links grouped by type. It is distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like search_graph or list_context, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

The final sentence implies how to narrow results (link_types, direction, limit), which is usable context. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to a sibling such as search_graph for broader queries.

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