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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it returns both the entity and its typed relationships, accepts exact keys or label terms, and returns alternatives when there is more than one candidate rather than failing. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 two dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It presents the core result first, then the query modes and ambiguity handling. The enumerations of entity types and relationship types are relevant and concise.

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 the rich input schema and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all selection-relevant details: entity types, relationship types, key formats, label search, and candidate disambiguation. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions, including exact key formats for entidade and bounds for limite. The description still adds value by confirming the accepted query modes and explicitly describing the multiple-candidates behavior, which goes beyond the schema-only 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Devolve') and a specific resource ('grafo de conhecimento jurídico'), enumerates the entity types and relationship types returned (cita, pertence_a, revoga, julgado_por, da_area), and explains the two query modes. This clearly distinguishes it from generic search or fetch siblings.

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 description clearly frames when to use the tool: when you need a legal knowledge-graph entity and its linked neighbors, using either an exact key or a label term. It also explains the ambiguity-handling behavior. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use them, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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