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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description correctly focuses on return behavior: the thing, its link, and every neighbour with edge type and direction. It also adds a genuinely non-obvious constraint that secrets are returned as titles only, which no annotation or schema conveys.

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?

It is front-loaded with purpose and use cases, then id formats, then return shape, then the `to` option — a sensible order. The long enumeration of covered families partially duplicates the `type` enum in the schema and is the one place that could be trimmed.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return payload (node, link, neighbours, edge type and direction). It does not mention what happens when a name matches multiple nodes or how results are ordered/truncated when neighbours exceed the limit.

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 coverage is 100% and both enums are documented in the schema, so the schema carries most of the parameter burden. The description adds marginal value by showing id format patterns and by naming representative edge types, but it does not explain how `type`/`edge_type` interact or how `limit` affects the path query.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Look up any thing in the slopped.site world by id or name") and immediately states the outcome ("see how it connects"). It enumerates covered entity families and gives concrete id examples ("game:spider", "codex:slopwright"), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_world, get_codex_entry, or get_artwork that each cover one family.

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?

It gives explicit query intents ("where does X appear", "what is connected to Y", "what is the page for Z") and explains that supplying `to` yields the shortest chain between two things. It does not explicitly say when to prefer search_world or the type-specific getters instead, so the sibling boundary is left partly to inference.

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