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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behavioral details: it returns the actual path rather than just a yes/no, explicitly states when records are NOT connected, and proactively explains what a shared connection does not prove. This gives an agent a realistic sense of the tool's output and limitations.

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 thorough yet focused, with every sentence contributing: it states core functionality, describes output behavior, covers negative cases, clarifies interpretive limits, and points to input sources. No content is redundant or extraneous.

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 description covers the essential context needed to invoke the tool correctly: what input is expected, where to get that input, what the tool returns, how it handles negative cases, and what the result does and does not mean. With an output schema present and the readOnly annotation, nothing important is missing.

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% and each parameter is described as a record id. The description adds some context by noting these are archive record ids and suggesting where to get them, but it does not add meaningful detail beyond what the schema already provides. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: determining whether two specific archive records are connected and explaining why, by tracing the actual path through the relationship graph. It emphasizes that the result is an explanation, not merely a boolean, which differentiates it from a simple lookup. This distinct purpose separates it from sibling tools like archive_search or colour_card.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you have two specific record IDs and need to know if and why they are connected. It also directs the user to obtain record_id values from archive_search or colour_card, providing a practical entry point. It does not explicitly list alternative tools or when not to use it, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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