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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful trait beyond that: an id belonging to a different graph 404s rather than resolving, and ids are not portable between graphs. It stops short of describing pagination or output volume, but the annotations carry most of the load.

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?

Three short paragraphs, each front-loaded: return contents first, then parameter provenance and the 404 caveat, then routing to alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, though the block is slightly longer than strictly necessary for a two-parameter read tool.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return values, yet it still signals what comes back. Parameter provenance, the cross-graph 404 behavior, and sibling routing are all covered, leaving no material gap for correct invocation.

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 must carry the burden, and it does: it states that `memory` is the graph slug from list_my_memories and that `object_id` comes from semantic_search, list_objects or recall. It also warns that ids cannot be reused across graphs. Only the integer type/format detail is left to the schema.

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 and resource plus the exact payload returned: properties, incoming and outgoing relationships grouped by type, actions that touch it, and approved owners. This is precise enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_paths and get_change_impact without opening any schema.

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?

Dedicated 'Reach for something else when' block names three alternatives and the condition selecting each: semantic_search expand=1 for the first ring around many hits, get_paths for how two objects connect, get_change_impact for blast radius. Explicit when-not guidance with named alternatives.

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