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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: a 15-credit cost and the important caveat that a clipped search yields incomplete results rather than a negative claim. It does not explain how depth/limit clipping actually works, which is the other half of that caveat.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, prerequisite, clipping caveat, return shape, cost. Constraint and purpose are front-loaded with no filler.

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 values need not be explained, and cost/prerequisite/caveat are covered. The gap is parameter documentation: with 0% schema coverage, an agent has no guidance on what depth and limit do or how they interact with the stated three-hop bound.

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% and none of the six parameters (depth, limit, source_kind/id, target_kind/id) are defined. The only trace is 'within three hops', which loosely maps to the depth default of 3. For a zero-coverage schema the description should carry this burden and largely does not.

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?

Specific verb+resource+scope: 'Find a recorded path between two corporate-network records within three hops.' An agent can distinguish this from a generic graph query. However, it never names the closest siblings (actor_network, entity_relationships), so the boundary is left to inference.

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?

It gives one prerequisite ('Requires the customer's account') but no when-to-use guidance or alternatives. With actor_network and entity_relationships in the sibling set, the description should say when a between-two-nodes path query is preferred over a network expansion.

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