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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is a read-style operation ('Return'), that results are ordered by risk ('risk-ranked'), and that the graph spans multiple entity dimensions. However, it does not explain how filters interact, whether the graph is computed live vs stored, or what sensitivity/auth considerations exist.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff: 'Return risk-ranked...' immediately communicates the action and resource. However, the brevity contributes to the missing contextual depth, so it is concise but not maximally helpful.

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 tool with 8 optional parameters, no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and a complex graph-query domain, the description is far too sparse. The presence of an output schema covers return-shape requirements, but an agent still cannot determine how to build a query, what filters mean, or when this tool is the right choice.

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 has 8 optional parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention any of them. node_id, path_id, decision, namespace, identity_id, workflow_id, minimum_score, and path_class_id remain unexplained. The high-level phrase 'across context, identities, MCP tools, and evidence' only vaguely maps to some of these and leaves the rest ambiguous.

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 states a clear, specific operation: 'Return risk-ranked agentic exposure paths' and lists the dimensions it covers: context, identities, MCP tools, and evidence. It differentiates itself from the many sibling recipe/risk tools by describing a graph-oriented, risk-ranked exposure query rather than a pack or scorecard.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs the many sibling risk, trust, and exposure-related tools. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, prerequisites, or typical query scenarios. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and vague scope statement.

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