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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description need not repeat safety. It does add genuine behavioral detail beyond annotations — traversal is bidirectional and index/map pages are excluded as intermediate hops — but it says nothing about the result when no path exists or about chain length limits.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core concept, with the parenthetical qualifiers placed after the main clause. Every element carries information, though the parenthetical pack could be split for readability.

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 no output schema, the description is the only source of information about results, and it never states what a path result looks like (an ordered list of documents? edges?) or what is returned when no connection exists. For a two-argument path-query tool this is an adequate but incomplete definition.

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%, with 'from' and 'to' documented as 'Start: path or name' and 'End: path or name'. The description only reinforces that the two arguments are documents; it adds no extra semantics such as whether names are resolved case-insensitively or what happens with ambiguous names, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description names a specific resource and query — the shortest chain of links connecting two documents — which is concrete enough for an agent to distinguish from a general graph dump or a search tool. The verb is implicit ('how ... are connected') rather than an explicit 'find/return', but the meaning is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you need the relationship between exactly two documents. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to a sibling such as kb_graph or kb_find for broader traversal or lookup, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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