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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains that the tool walks a graph, returns prerequisite statuses, and accepts both merged CIPs and open-PR drafts. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether there are any side effects, or whether the traversal has limits (e.g., depth, cycle handling). These are useful but not critical gaps.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. The action and output are front-loaded, followed by input formats and scope. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure makes the tool's purpose immediately scannable.

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 the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential elements: purpose, input format, output, and applicable context. It doesn't detail edge cases like cycles, missing statuses, or max depth, but for a single-parameter tool this is a solid, usable description.

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 schema already documents cip_id with examples. The description adds semantic depth by explaining that 'CIP-0005' and '5' represent merged CIPs while 'PR-203' represents an open-PR draft, clarifying the input domain beyond the schema. This is valuable added meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Walk the CIP `requires:` graph'), states the exact output (full chain of prerequisites with statuses), and scopes itself to 'Celestia governance only,' which differentiates it from broader sibling tools like ecosystem_dependency_graph. An agent can clearly tell what this tool does and what it does not.

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?

Provides an explicit use case: 'Use when planning around a CIP that hasn't shipped yet.' This is a clear trigger condition. It does not mention when not to use it or name a specific alternative, but the context signal is strong enough to guide selection.

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