ep_lineage

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

With no annotations provided, the description implies a read-only operation ('View') and names the returned data elements. It does not discuss side effects, authorization, or performance, but for a query tool this is sufficient. No contradictions with annotations.

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 only two sentences, both informative without filler. The first sentence defines functionality, the second provides usage guidance. Every word serves a purpose.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage. It could optionally mention expected output format or limitations, but it is adequate.

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 the param description 'Entity ID to check lineage for' is already clear. The tool description adds only a usage context, not additional meaning about the parameter 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 states the verb 'View' and the resource 'entity lineage', listing specific components (predecessors, successors, continuity decisions, whitewashing flags) and providing a concrete use case. This makes it distinct from sibling tools that handle registration, trust, or 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 includes a direct usage hint: 'Use to check if an entity has suspicious continuity gaps.' This gives clear context for when to apply the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools.

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