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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive status, so the description is free to add the traits that matter: the expansion is 'bounded' to 1-2 hops, the depth is controllable, and results span multiple banks. It also discloses the underlying read path (GRAPH.RO_QUERY), which reinforces the safety profile. It doesn't discuss result volume or pagination.

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 returned fields are front-loaded in one dense sentence, with the caveat about single-bank visibility immediately after. The trailing 'FalkorDB features: GRAPH.RO_QUERY, bounded undirected expansion' is implementation detail that adds little for an agent and is the one expendable fragment.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting by enumerating the returned components (scores, shared identity, cases/alerts, counterparties at other banks, bounded neighbourhood). Combined with the annotations covering safety, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though the depth parameter's valid range remains unstated.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It hints at the meaning of depth via 'bounded 1-2 hop neighbourhood' and 'depth' defaults to 2, but neither parameter is explicitly explained and the valid depth range is never stated.

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 names a specific resource (an account's cross-bank neighbourhood in the consortium graph) and enumerates exactly what it returns, which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like similar_accounts or connected_components. It stops short of an explicit verb, but the scope is unmistakable.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The line 'A bank alone only sees its own side of these links' is domain framing, not a condition for choosing this tool over trace_money_path, similar_accounts, or run_readonly_cypher.

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