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

The description discloses the credit cost and states the output type (requires/recommends/conflicts relationships). However, with no annotations, it lacks details on whether the operation is read-only, error conditions, required permissions, or response structure. It provides basic behavior beyond the input schema but not comprehensive transparency.

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 a single sentence plus a cost note, very concise and front-loaded with purpose. However, it may be too brief to include necessary details; there is no wasted wording, but structure is minimal.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain the output format of the relationships (e.g., list of block IDs). It also does not specify block_id format. With 0% parameter coverage and sibling tools, the description is incomplete for a new user to understand exactly what they get back.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the sole parameter block_id, and the description only says 'Given a block' without clarifying the expected format (e.g., UUID, string). It adds no meaning beyond the schema title 'Block Id', failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states that the tool returns requires/recommends/conflicts relationships for a given block. It uses specific verbs ('return') and identifies the resource, distinguishing it from siblings like get_block (which returns block details) and search_blocks (search).

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 description mentions a credit cost (0.5 credits), which is a usage constraint, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_block or search_blocks. There is no guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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