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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it declares read semantics implicitly ('search'), discloses a tenancy/auth boundary ('graphs the caller owns'), and describes the return shape ('excerpts with run/node/hop provenance'). It omits operational traits such as rate limits or result-count behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 dense sentences with no filler: the first delivers purpose, scope, and the sibling comparison; the second delivers the return format. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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, but the description compensates by naming the returned excerpts and their provenance. For a 3-parameter, fully documented read tool the definition is essentially complete; only marginal operational detail is absent.

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 limit, query, and graphId are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the framing of 'hop logs (inputs and outputs)' and reiterates the owned-graph scoping around graphId, which is marginal value beyond the structured fields.

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 (full-text search across previous runs' hop logs) plus the exact scope (inputs and outputs, on graphs the caller owns). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the in-run search_runs variant and from siblings like get_run and list_graphs, which are lookup-by-id rather than text 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?

Clearly frames this as cross-run, past-run recall as opposed to the in-run tool, and constrains scope to owned graphs, which tells the agent when this tool applies. It does not, however, explicitly say when to prefer get_run or list_graphs instead, so there is no exclusion guidance.

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