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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds real behavioral context by telling the agent this is 'one composite call' that bundles several analyses, which affects cost and result shape. It stops short of describing result size, latency, or whether missing objects error out.

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?

Extremely tight: one framing question, a compact enumeration of outputs, and one clarifying note on `memory`. The purpose is front-loaded and no sentence is filler, though the em-dash list reads slightly telegraphic.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still sketches the payload categories — helpful for tool selection. Combined with the `memory` clarification and the composite-call note, an agent has enough to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description has to carry the burden. It clarifies that `memory` is the graph's slug, which is genuinely useful for a string param that would otherwise be ambiguous, but `object_id` is left entirely undocumented beyond its self-evident name.

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 composite read operation ('change impact') and enumerates what it aggregates: event-class neighbours, actions touching the object, property conflicts, related objects, provenance. That is far more than a restatement of the name and clearly distinguishes it from narrow siblings like get_object or get_paths, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 framing question ('What should I watch out for if I change this object?') implies the pre-change analysis use case, so intended usage is inferable. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to alternative tools such as get_object or get_paths for simpler lookups.

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