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

The annotation already signals readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: it returns the actual path, states plainly when records are not connected, and always explains what a shared connection does not prove. This goes well beyond the structured annotation and helps the agent set accurate expectations for the response.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds valuable detail about output behavior, non-connection handling, and the important interpretative caveat. It is slightly long with two similar Wada examples, but every sentence contributes to correct tool invocation and expectation setting.

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 presence of an output schema and readOnly annotation, the description covers everything needed to select and call the tool correctly: the exact inputs, the output semantics, the failure/non-connection case, and the caution about overinterpreting results. No critical context is missing.

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 fully describes both parameters (a and b) as record IDs, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by explicitly noting these are 'archive records' and that record_id values come from archive_search or colour_card, but it adds no parameter-specific syntax or constraints beyond that.

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 opens with a precise question and answers it: it traces the real path between two specific archive records through the stored relationship graph and returns the path, not merely a yes/no. It also names its domain (Colour Memory's relationship graph) and gives concrete examples, making it clearly distinguishable from archive_search or colour_card.

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 establishes when to use it: for two specific archive record IDs when the agent needs the actual connection path and caveats. It also tells the agent where to obtain valid record_id values (archive_search or colour_card). It does not explicitly name sibling tools to avoid, but the usage context is strong enough that an agent should not confuse it with related tools.

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