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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description adds value beyond them: a 15-credit cost, the caveat that a clipped/truncated search yields incomplete results rather than proof of no relationship, and the shape of the return (ordered hops plus evidence). It does not explain what triggers clipping or how limits interact with cost.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries information: scope, prerequisite, caveat, return shape, cost. Slightly dense but 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 details need not be spelled out, and the cost/account/clipping signals are helpful. But for a 6-parameter, 0%-coverage tool with a configurable depth that may exceed the stated three hops, the description leaves too much of the invocation surface unexplained.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. "Within three hops" loosely maps to depth, but source_kind/source_id/target_kind/target_id and especially limit are never explained (what limit bounds, whether depth is capped, how the enum kinds combine).

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: finds a recorded path between two corporate-network records, bounded by hop count. It is clear what the tool returns (ordered hops with source/publication evidence). It does not name the closest siblings (actor_network, entity_relationships), so differentiation 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?

"Requires the customer's account" gives a real prerequisite, and the note about clipped searches warns against over-reading results. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus actor_network or entity_relationships, and no statement of when not to use this costly tool.

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