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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and a title, and the description adds genuinely non-redundant context: results are owner-scoped, ordered busiest-first, and each row carries a party_id, kind, aliases, counts and date bounds. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or what an empty/unbuilt graph returns, so it falls just short of the top band.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The high-value content — what comes back and how to chain it — is front-loaded before any qualifier.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating every returned field and the sort order, plus the owner-scoping constraint. Combined with full schema coverage on the one parameter, an agent has everything needed to call it and use the result.

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% and the single `limit` parameter is fully documented in the schema (default 40, max 200). The description only echoes the 'busiest first' ordering and adds no format or edge-case guidance, so this is the baseline-3 case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (parties — people/companies/services — in the user's knowledge graph), plus the exact fields returned and the ordering rule ('busiest first'). It also implicitly separates itself from mRAG_graph_neighbors and mRAG_graph_timeline by framing itself as the entry point that produces the party_id those tools consume.

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?

Explicit routing: 'This is the entry point: use a returned party_id with mRAG_graph_neighbors or mRAG_graph_timeline.' The when-to-use and the alternative are both named, and the owner-scoped constraint is stated, so nothing is left to inference.

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