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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does this well by disclosing the 1-hop limit, bidirectional edges, typed edge list, and resolved neighbor titles/URLs. It does not mention error handling, auth, or rate limits, but for a read-only graph query, this is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause adds value: the graph type, the 1-hop ego network, the typed edges, both directions, resolved titles/URLs, and a usage hint. There is no wasted text.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential return behavior (edges, directions, resolved titles/URLs) and provides a practical use case. It lacks explicit notes on empty results or errors, but the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying that slug and section identify a node and that edge_type filters edges. It does not expand on parameter syntax or provide examples beyond the schema itself.

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 identifies the tool as a query operation on a typed content graph, specifying the exact resource ('typed Wheel of Heaven content graph') and the scope ('1-hop ego network of any corpus node'). It also lists the edge types explicitly, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_corpus or get_entry.

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 states when to use the tool: 'finding everything connected to a concept, or how two entries relate.' This gives clear context, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it. It implies these use cases separate it from searching or retrieving single entries.

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