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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully describes the output payload fields and the default 1-hop edge expansion, plus the cost ("Free · 1 credit"), but says nothing about scope/permission requirements, result limits, pagination, or whether results are ranked or truncated beyond top_k.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then return payload, then a usage rule, then cost — four tight clauses with no filler. Each sentence adds information an agent needs (what, what comes back, when to use, what it costs).

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned node fields and the edge triples. Remaining gaps are minor: query syntax, ranking semantics, and any result-size or personal-library scoping caveats are left implicit.

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 60%: kinds, node_type, and include_edges are documented in the schema, while query and top_k are not. The description confirms 'free-text query' and that edges are returned by default, adding modest value, but it gives no guidance on query syntax, ranking, or how top_k interacts with the top-hit edge expansion.

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 ("Search the research knowledge graph for nodes") with the matching mechanism ("free-text query") and even the return shape. The line "Use this first when you need to find papers, methods, or concepts by topic" positions it against the many library_* retrieval siblings without needing to name each one.

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?

Gives a clear entry-point rule: use this first for topic discovery of papers, methods, or concepts. It also implies narrowing via the kinds/node_type filters. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative (e.g., library_filter or library_node_context) or stating when NOT to use it, so it falls shy of a 5.

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