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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the return shape (node fields plus links grouped by type with citable ids), but says nothing about truncation, the limit default, or behavior when the node is missing.

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 compact sentences, output shape front-loaded before the filtering sentence. Dense but no filler; the only weakness is that the second sentence reads as a parameter list rather than guidance.

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 burden of explaining return values and does describe node fields and link grouping adequately. Still, for a 5-parameter tool at 20% schema coverage, gaps remain around id semantics, limit defaults, and missing-node behavior.

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% (just lang), so the description must compensate and partially does: it names link_types, direction and limit and their filtering role. However, the id parameter is unexplained and no value semantics (e.g., default limit, valid link type strings) are added beyond the enums already in the schema.

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 the specific resource (one node) and enumerates the returned fields — description, conditions, source, level — plus grouped links with citable Lxxxx ids. This makes it clearly distinguishable from search_graph or list_context, though it never names a sibling 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 only usage guidance is 'Filter with link_types, direction and limit,' which is parameter mechanics rather than when to use this tool. There is no statement of prerequisites (e.g., needing a node id from search_graph) or when a different sibling should be chosen instead.

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