Data flow and where-used

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing what each relation actually returns (transformations and DTPs between objects) and framing where_used as change-impact analysis, which matters given there is no output schema.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the core capability comes first, then the two mode definitions, then the routing advice, then the depth note. Every clause adds information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 6-parameter traversal tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, both relation modes, return content and hop depth, which is close to sufficient. The omission of direction semantics is the main gap, but annotations cover the safety side and no return values need explaining beyond what is stated.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 17%, the description is expected to carry more, and it does explain relation's two enum values and that depth controls hop count. However, direction (up/down/both) and source_system are left entirely to the bare schema, and depth's 1-5 bounds are not reinforced.

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 (show how a BW object is connected) and precisely delineates the two modes: relation="dataflow" returns sources/targets plus the transformations and DTPs, while "where_used" returns referencing objects. An agent can tell this apart from plain object reading without inspecting the schema.

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?

"Use it instead of reading many objects one by one" explicitly routes the agent away from iterative reads (bw_read), and "impact before a change" gives the decision context for where_used. It does not state any when-not conditions or name the sibling tools directly, so it falls short of a full 5.

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