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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behavior: paths are limited to deliberate relationships (excluding bulk-import and system-inferred edges), the maximum length is 3 hops, and an empty list is returned when no connection exists. It also explicitly instructs the agent to report no-connection honestly and never invent a path, which is a valuable guardrail.

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?

The description is information-dense with no redundancy: it packs in scope, an example, an exclusion rule, and return behavior in four sentences. Each sentence earns its place, and the critical constraints (max 3 hops, empty list honesty) are clearly emphasized.

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?

Given the simple 2-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to invoke the tool correctly: input semantics, path length, edge inclusion rules, return shape, and the no-connection edge case. The example also clarifies the expected path structure sufficiently for downstream use.

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?

The input schema already fully documents both parameters as exact object_ids with clear descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds useful context about graph objects and hops, but it does not add new parameter-level syntax, formats, or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies a distinct operation: finding the shortest path between two graph objects using only deliberate relationships, up to 3 hops, with a concrete example. It is specific about the resource and behavior, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like search_connections or mutual_connections.

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 implies when to use the tool—when checking whether and how two objects are connected—but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not mention sibling alternatives or explain when a different connection-related tool would be preferable.

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