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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that an empty result means the knowledge graph does not yet contain the ordering and that the tool will not fabricate one. It also explains the meaning of requires vs enables, adding useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 compact and well-structured: bold lead statement, concrete use cases, relational semantics, and a caveat about empty results. Every sentence contributes and no information is wasted.

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?

Given 100% parameter schema coverage and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, relation semantics, and the key empty-result behavior. It could have been richer about other relation values or explicit sibling differentiation, but the core calling context is complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by defining what relation=requires and relation=enables mean in the construction domain, and by clarifying the significance of an empty result. That extra semantics lifts it above baseline.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource — traversing construction sequence and precedence relations — and grounds it with concrete examples like '기초부터 골조까지 순서'. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling path_between, but the domain and process-oriented examples make the tool's purpose identifiable.

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?

Explicitly says to use it for process/order questions ('공정 질문에 쓴다') and gives representative questions. It defines relation semantics for requires/enables. It does not state exclusions or alternative tool choices, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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