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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds the newest-first ordering and the contents of each row, but says nothing about the limit parameter's default or truncation behavior, which is the one behavioral risk for a list tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, then the sibling routing hint — all in two sentences. The trailing 'FalkorDB features: GRAPH.RO_QUERY over the consortium graph' is an implementation detail that adds little selection value for an agent.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields, which is the main completeness requirement here. The only real gap is the undocumented limit parameter (default, truncation), and annotations already cover the safety profile.

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?

The single parameter (limit, default 30) has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so nothing compensates for the gap. 'Newest first' hints at ordering but not at how many rows come back or what limit does.

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 and resource ('List investigation cases') and enumerates exactly what each row contains (status, title, seed account, alert/account counts, banks, graph-loaded flag). It also names the sibling get_case as the detail-lookup counterpart, so the agent can separate the two without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear context: this is the enumeration entry point, and 'Use a case id with get_case' explicitly routes detail retrieval to the sibling. It does not say when *not* to use it or how it relates to other listing tools like list_graphs or list_alerts, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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