Describe a SPOKE node's actual relationships (degree profile)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the node is resolved first and tolerates case, apostrophes, and ids, and it advises reporting absence rather than guessing. No rate limits or performance notes, but the extra detail is meaningful.

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 capability in sentence one, then usage, then return shape. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical examples and the 'Also ideal' sentence make it denser than strictly necessary.

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 spelling out the return shape ({node:{...}, relationships:[{dir, rel, neighbor_label, count}]}) plus node-resolution behavior and the semantics of an empty result. Complete for an agent to call and interpret it 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining that the query value is resolved before use and accepts case variants, apostrophes, and ids, which clarifies what a valid `query` actually is.

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 specific verb+resource ('Show what a node is ACTUALLY connected to') and enumerates exactly what is returned: relationship types, neighbour label, direction, count. The emphasis on ACTUAL connections implicitly distinguishes it from the schema-level sibling (get_spoke_schema), which returns possible rather than observed edges.

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?

Gives two concrete usage contexts: (a) choosing which relationship to traverse, and (b) avoiding thrashing when an expected edge type is absent, including worked examples (PRESENTS_DpS, LOCALIZES_DlA). It names no alternative sibling as the 'use X instead' path and states no explicit when-not, so it stops short of a 5.

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