entity_connections

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It honestly discloses that the tool returns edges capped at 100, sorted by co_occurrence_count, and supports depth 1 or 2. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, mention any authentication needs, or describe behavior when no edges exist.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds essential information: what it does, depth options, and output constraints. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers key aspects but leaves gaps. It explains the output behavior (edges capped and sorted) but does not describe the response structure or fields. The 'min_co_occurrences' parameter is entirely omitted. Completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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?

The input schema has 0% parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains the depth parameter and the edge cap/sorting, adding meaning beyond the schema's constraints. However, it fails to describe the 'id' parameter beyond 'entity ID' and does not mention the 'min_co_occurrences' parameter at all.

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 tool's purpose: returning co-occurrence edges to other entities via shared state bills, given an entity ID. It specifies depth options (direct or one hop) and output constraints (capped at 100, sorted by count). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_entity (which retrieves a single entity) and search_entities (which searches).

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 implies usage when an entity ID is available and edges are needed, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_entity or search_entities. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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