neighbors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response bundles three kinds of content (neighbours, inter-neighbour links, theses), which is useful shape information, but says nothing about cost, graph size limits, or what happens at max hops.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the scope are stated immediately. Minor loss for the parenthetical list, which spends words on examples already covered by the relations enum in 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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description needn't explain return values. The remaining gap is routing: for a 4-parameter graph traversal tool among siblings like find_paths, impact, and get_entity, some signal about when this is the right choice is missing.

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 75%; the description supplies the meaning of the one undescribed parameter by defining `hops` as link distance and giving concrete relation examples (suppliers, customers, competitors). The entity and valid_at semantics are already documented in the schema, so this is adequate without redundancy.

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?

Names a specific resource (the entity's neighbourhood graph) and enumerates what it returns: companies within `hops` links, the links among them, and theses about them. That is far more informative than the bare name 'neighbors'. It stops short of naming a sibling it is not (e.g. find_paths or get_entity), so an agent must infer differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the content — 'within hops links' suggests exploratory graph expansion rather than single-entity lookup. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no mention of alternatives such as find_paths, get_entity, or impact, all of which overlap. The agent must infer routing from the sibling names alone.

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