Find pathway relations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain-meaningful context ('signed, evidence-linked', filterable by contested status), but says nothing about result volume, pagination behavior, or what an empty result means.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the nature of the resource front-loaded before the filtering options. The parenthetical example earns its place by disambiguating 'signed relation'.

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 an 8-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description covers filtering but not result shape or paging (offset/next_offset only appear in the schema). It also gives no help decoding the strength codes, which are ambiguous in the schema itself (enum includes R/PP/RT while the ordering note stops at M).

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate, and it does: entity, source/target, effect, contested status, and strength threshold are all named in prose. It omits limit/offset semantics, but offset is documented in 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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Find pathway relations') and clarifies what a relation actually is with an example ('Rheb activates mTORC1'), plus the qualifier 'signed, evidence-linked'. This clearly separates it from a single-record lookup like get_relation, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 second sentence enumerates the available filter dimensions, which implies how to narrow a query, but it never says when to use this tool versus get_relation, evidence_between, or find_contradictions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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