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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the batching behavior (max 200, call once per document), and the result fields described in prose. It doesn't detail, so a 4 fits.

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-loaded with the core question, then usage timing, then input/output shape, then action guidance. The structure is logical and mostly tight; it's a bit dense but every sentence carries instruction.

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 needn't be fully explained, yet the description usefully pre-summarizes `exact` and `matches`. For a 3-param read-only tool this is nearly complete; only the `memory` and `top_k` params remain unexplained.

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 0% (no field descriptions), so the description must compensate. It does well for the central `items` param, documenting exact/extraction consumers the description names: `memory`, `top_k`, and the envelope shape aren't described in prose, leaving a gap.

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 ('Ask which of your candidate names already exist in the graph') and distinguishes it from creation siblings like remember/merge_objects by emphasizing deduplication before emitting the final JSON.

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 instructs 'call ONCE per document during extraction, after drafting candidate entities and before emitting the final JSON' and clarifies the create-new alternative ('only names with no hits should be created new'), giving clear when-to-use and when-to-create-instead guidance.

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