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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of what class vocabulary exists, whether the graph is local or open-world external, or what shape results take.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally clean. The brevity is under-specification rather than efficient concision, but there is no padding or redundancy to penalize.

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 an 8-parameter, zero-documented-schema, no-output-schema query tool sitting among ~180 siblings, the description leaves essentially every decision to guesswork. An agent has no basis to construct a valid call or predict results.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must carry the load and does not. Only 'by class' loosely maps to the `class` parameter; q, type, place, lat, lon, radius_km and limit are completely unexplained — an agent cannot tell whether q is a free-text search, a class name, or a query language string, nor how place/lat/lon/radius_km interact.

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 sentence 'Ask the ce-net graph by class instead of tool by tool' gestures at querying an ontology/graph by class, but 'ce-net' and 'ask the graph' are undefined and it never states what is retrieved (nodes? entities? relationships?). It hints at a contrast with the many per-resource siblings (node_read, node_graph, thread_graph) without clearly distinguishing itself.

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?

'instead of tool by tool' implies the agent should prefer this over calling individual tools, which is a faint usage signal. But there is no when-to-use condition, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the dozens of graph/node/search siblings.

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