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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses key behavior: it runs 40 tools, returns only entities appearing in at least two tools, and orders them strongest first. It does not mention cost, performance, or no-result behavior, but it is substantially transparent about what the tool does.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, with no filler. The key details are presented efficiently.

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?

The output behavior is well covered and an output schema exists, but the meaning of q is under-specified and there is no guidance on when to choose this over related sweep tools. For a complex 40-tool operation, this is adequate but not complete.

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 compensate, but it only refers to 'the query' without explaining what q should contain (domain, email, IP, free text, etc.). This is too vague for an agent to know what input values are valid for the sweep.

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 clearly states the action ('Run a 40-tool broad sweep') and the resource/output ('cross-tool entity graph'), with specific entity types and a threshold (>=2 tools). This makes it distinguishable from sibling sweep-like tools such as person_sweep.

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 description provides clear context for when to use it: when you need a connected-pattern signal across tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but 'This is the connected-pattern signal' communicates the intended use case.

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