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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), yet the description adds real behavioral context: the returned step shape {from, rel, direction, to}, the guarantee that paths are minimal length, and the crucial caveat that 'found: false' with 'frontier_truncated: true' is a breadth-cap artifact rather than proof of disconnection. That last detail materially changes how an agent interprets results.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then packs the input formats, output shape, and the frontier_truncated caveat into tight sentences with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 restated, yet the description still flags the interpretation trap in the results, which is the most likely source of agent error. Combined with the named alternative, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does explain start/target semantics ('accept an object id or an exact name/display name') but leaves memory, limit, and max_depth entirely undocumented — including the max_depth that drives the frontier_truncated behavior it describes.

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+resource ('Shortest relationship paths between two objects in a graph') and adds a plain-language framing ('how are A and B connected?'). It clearly distinguishes itself from hop-by-hop get_object chaining and from unrelated siblings like list_objects or recall.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use this instead of chaining get_object calls hop by hop,' naming the alternative and the reason. It lacks any when-not guidance (e.g., cases where resolve_names or semantic_search should be tried first), so it falls just short of fully prescriptive.

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