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

Annotations already cover the safe/idempotent read profile, yet the description adds substantial behavioral context: results are truncated by entitlement, lists return only first 5 rows plus locked.count/locked.by_type, records cap related names at 3 per section, and contact values/decision-maker names are never returned. It also names the fields that disclose what was withheld (entitlement, locked).

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 purpose and hop/no-match semantics are well front-loaded, but the ACCESS paragraph is long and blends genuine withholding disclosure with a commercial upsell ('7 days free at https://...'), which does not help an agent decide or call the tool. It is informative but not tight.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by describing return structure (entitlement, locked, locked.count, locked.by_type) and result limits. Combined with the id-format detail in the schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only finer details like pagination or full field list are absent.

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 67%, with the two dfx_id parameters heavily documented in the schema itself (all graph prefixes and bare UUID). The description adds the meaning of max_hops (hop budget) and confirms the default, but max_hops has no schema description, and the description does not expand on hop semantics beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: an evidence-backed path between two DFX ids across every graph, with each hop defined as a published relationship or SAME_AS identity link. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling search_relationships (which lists relationships rather than connecting two entities) and from the get_* entity tools.

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?

Explains the search is bidirectional and bounded by max_hops, and gives crucial interpretation guidance (NO_MATCH means no observed path within budget, not that they are unconnected). It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of the top tier.

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