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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description reinforces with 'the score is recomputed in memory, nothing is written' and discloses what the response contains (origin groups, multiplicity, weights, unexplored origin kinds, evidence Cypher). That is real behavioral context beyond the annotations, though permission/authorization needs are unstated.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by output shape and safety. It is dense but each sentence carries information; the trailing FalkorDB implementation notes (GRAPH.RO_QUERY, variable-length DERIVED_FROM traversal) are the weakest, least selection-relevant part.

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 comprehensively enumerates the return payload, and the read-only nature is covered. The one genuine hole is the total absence of parameter meaning, which matters for a 2-required-param tool.

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 description coverage is 0% for both required parameters, and the description never mentions case_id or claim_id – not their format, scoping, or whether they must already exist. With 0% coverage the description was obliged to compensate and does not.

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 and the exact mechanism: 'Why a claim has the confidence it has (GraphEcho echo-proof scoring)'. It also spells out the core concept (echo-proof vs naive path counting) that separates it from generic siblings like run_readonly_cypher or trace_money_path.

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?

Implied usage is clear – call it to understand a claim's confidence – and 'Pure read' signals a safe diagnostic role. However, it never states when to reach for this instead of run_readonly_cypher or trace_money_path, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites described.

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