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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a critical behavioral caveat: it returns no edges unless the pack ships a _graph.yaml, plus that traversal is bounded by depth hops. It does not mention permissions or performance, but the empty-result condition is the key operational fact an agent needs.

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 front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the first states purpose and scope, the second states the failure condition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 so return-value shape need not be explained, and the description covers the main input plus the important empty-result caveat. The gap is the undocumented edge_kinds parameter, which is unaddressed in both description and schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains file_path (topic file, with example) and depth ('up to depth hops'), but edge_kinds is never mentioned in the description or schema, leaving one of three parameters entirely undocumented.

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 (traverse) and resource (EMEP knowledge graph) with a concrete example path, and distinguishes itself from retrieval siblings like ep_search and get_guidance by describing graph-hop traversal rather than search or direct fetch.

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 '[Knowledge Retrieval]' tag and 'find related guidance' phrase imply when the tool is useful, but it never states when to prefer it over ep_search, ep_list_topics, or get_guidance, nor any prerequisites. Usage must be inferred.

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