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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the graph is bounded to a fixed property list, depth is capped at two hops, only notable public roles are included for people, and the failure mode returns an empty graph plus a reason. It also surfaces the $0.01 x402 cost, which is important for a paid tool; missing are auth/payment mechanics and rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and output, followed by the two behavioral constraints an agent most needs (notability restriction, empty-graph behavior) and a trailing cost note. No filler sentences; the parenthetical property list is dense but informative.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description adequately covers return shape (graph, or empty graph with a reason) and the paid-access model. The main gap is input semantics for the two parameters, particularly what max_depth changes, given the description fixes the default at two hops without addressing the adjustable range.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at 'seed_entity' by saying 'one public name' and gestures at depth with 'up to two hops', but 'max_depth' is never named or explained (its schema allows 1-4), and there is no guidance on whether the seed should be a plain name or a QID, nor on the 500-character limit.

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 concrete verb ('Resolves'), a specific resource ('one public name on Wikidata'), and the returned artifact ('a relationship graph'). The scope of the graph is spelled out via the fixed property list skeleton, so an agent knows exactly what kind of output to expect.

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 rather than stated: it's for looking up a single public entity, and the description notes the empty-graph case with a reason. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative, which is acceptable here since no sibling tool overlaps, but it falls short of a 4.

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