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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantial context beyond them: the one-level-at-a-time drill model, the virtual root node when topicId is omitted, that children carry recentEventCount signalling activity concentration, that artefacts are capped at 20, and that liveLinkCount counts shared links. This is exactly the behavioral detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the imperative 'ALWAYS call this before...' followed by a clean three-bullet breakdown of modes and a closing set of alternates. Nearly every sentence earns its place, though the final sentence on artefacts/liveLinkCount is somewhat dense and could be split.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing return values, and it does so mode by mode, including recentEventCount, artefacts (with cap), and liveLinkCount. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly or interpret results 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 already 100%, and the schema itself notes 'Omit to get root domains'. The description adds meaning beyond that by explaining the recursive drill pattern (pass a child ID in the next call) and what each mode returns, though the ID format itself is left to the schema pattern.

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 ('Browse the topic graph one level at a time') and explicitly distinguishes itself from engramic_search (keyword lookup) and engramic_artefact (link reading). The three bullet modes describe the exact behavior with or without topicId, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening the schema.

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 explicit when-to-use ('ALWAYS call this before engramic_record_draft to confirm topics exist'), an alternative for a different need ('Use engramic_search to find topics by keyword'), and concrete use cases (verify structure, confirm placement, explore children). Exclusions and routing are both present.

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