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

Annotations already confirm read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds rich guard details: engine rejects writes, single statement, banned clauses, CALL restrictions, automatic LIMIT, 200-row cap, and 10s timeout.

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 'Last resort' and packed into one dense but necessary paragraph; every clause covers a distinct guard or parameter. No filler.

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?

For a complex, high-risk query tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough behavioral context: safety guards, row/time limits, graph options, and a pointer to graph_schema. An agent can invoke it correctly.

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 must compensate. It lists allowed graph values ('consortium', 'bank_<id>', 'case_<id>', 'typology_kb') and constrains the cypher string, but does not explicitly explain the limit parameter's default or its relationship to the automatic row cap.

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 (run) and resource (read-only Cypher on one graph), and 'last resort' frames its scope relative to sibling tools. An agent can distinguish it from graph_schema or trace_money_path without opening the schema.

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?

'Last resort' gives a clear condition for use and implies when not to use it (only after other tools). However, it does not name specific alternative tools for the same querying goal, leaving that to inference.

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