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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, while the description adds important behavioral constraints: depth is hard-clamped to 2 hops, breadth is limited to 200 server-side, and results are owner-scoped. It also previews the returned edge metadata, giving the agent useful context beyond the safety annotation.

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 front-loads the core action before adding output details and server-side limits. Every sentence and fragment contributes useful information without unnecessary exposition.

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 a read-only graph exploration tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description supplies the key runtime constraints and result shape an agent needs. It covers purpose, source of input, limits, access scope, and expected output fields.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already fully documented. The description reinforces the depth and breadth clamps and the source of party_id, but it mostly repeats what the schema already provides rather than adding new parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: walking the connections of one party and returning linked parties with edge type, observation count, and timing. It also gives a crisp user-facing question it answers, which makes it distinguishable from mRAG_graph_overview and other graph 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?

It clearly positions the tool as a follow-up to mRAG_graph_overview by specifying that party_id comes from that tool, and it frames the use case as exploring who is connected to a known party. It does not explicitly state when to prefer mRAG_graph_timeline or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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