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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating it returns nodes/edges bounded by hop count, but it does not disclose result format, size limits, or error behavior.

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 short sentences with no filler. The action, input, and output are front-loaded, and every phrase contributes meaning.

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?

For a read-only graph traversal tool, the description covers the main elements: starting point (seed entity), operation (walk graph), and result (nodes and edges within N hops). Additional details like exact return structure would help, but the description is sufficient for basic invocation.

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?

The schema documents hops values and default, so that parameter is covered. The description adds meaning to entity_id by calling it a 'seed entity', but this is modest and does not fully compensate for the lack of entity_id documentation in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Walk') and resource ('fleet kinship graph'), and states what it returns ('nodes and edges within N hops'). This makes the tool's function clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling query tools.

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 context is implied: use this tool when you need to traverse the fleet kinship graph from a seed entity. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tools are mentioned.

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