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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the tool returns not only the requested object but also its connected objects/edges, and it supports lookup by either object_id or name. This gives the agent a clear expectation of what the call will return.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core behavior and return value are front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows naturally. 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?

For a simple read tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what it retrieves, how to identify the object, and when to use it. A slightly more explicit note about ambiguous name matches or missing objects would push it to 5, but this is adequate for confident invocation.

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%, so both parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds meaningful semantics on top: object_id is exact and preferred, and search/list return it; name can be full or partial. This helps the agent choose the right parameter and understand matching behavior.

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 ('Get one object'), the resource ('user's graph'), and the distinguishing feature (returns connected objects/edges). It names concrete examples (person's spaces, note's subject), which makes the tool's role unmistakable and differentiates it from searching or listing graph objects.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: when the user asks about a specific thing in their graph, or when following a connection found on another object. It does not explicitly say when not to use alternatives like search_graph_objects or list_graph_objects, but the 'specific thing' guidance strongly implies the distinction.

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