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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool performs graph traversal, but it does not state whether it returns a shortest path, how max_hops affects the search, what happens when no path exists, or whether connections are traversed bidirectionally. The poetic phrasing adds little operational transparency.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('A path between two verses through recorded connections') before the clarifying contrast. It could be slightly more concrete, but it is appropriately sized and every phrase earns its place.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity (source, target, max_hops) and no annotations, but the description covers only the core concept. It omits key operational details like hop limits, path selection behavior, and no-path handling. An agent would likely need additional inferences or trial calls to use the tool correctly and confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that source and target are verses, which adds meaning to those two parameter names. However, max_hops is completely unaddressed, and the description does not explain hop counting, default behavior, or limits, leaving a required-use parameter semantically under-specified.

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 identifies the resource and function: a path between two verses through recorded connections. It distinguishes the concept from a linear 'line', implying graph-based traversal, which separates it from tools like get_context or get_connection. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'find' or 'compute', so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

The phrase 'rather than the line' hints that this tool is for web-like distance between verses, not sequential context, but it never explicitly states when to use find_path versus siblings like get_connection, get_connections, or get_context. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-naming, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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