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

Annotations already declare a safe, closed-world read, so the description's job is to add traversal behavior, which it does: it discloses the hop limit semantics and exactly what the response carries (distance plus edge path). It doesn't discuss cost or result-size behavior for deeper traversals, which is a minor gap given the depth cap of 3.

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, front-loaded with the core action and return value, then usage, then filtering. No filler and no duplication of schema detail.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing what comes back (distance and the edge path that reached each node). With four fully documented parameters and clear annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond by explaining the intent of the relations filter ("follow only one kind of edge") and framing depth as hops into the graph, adding conceptual meaning rather than repeating types and ranges.

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 and resource ("walk the knowledge graph outward from a concept") and adds scope detail: everything within depth hops, plus the distance and edge path returned. This is clearly distinguishable from get_concept and search_concepts, the latter explicitly contrasted with "keyword search".

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?

Gives two concrete use cases (mapping blast radius before changing a feature; discovering structure keyword search misses) and a narrowing instruction via relation names. It stops short of naming when to prefer get_concept or search_concepts by tool name, so a little inference is still required.

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