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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new traits: it abstains when nothing matches well (a critical expectation for callers), returns citations, and relies on a full-text index over the typology_kb graph, which signals fuzzy rather than exact matching.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and examples; nothing is padded. The trailing 'FalkorDB features' sentence is the weakest, reading as implementation detail, though it does hint at matching behavior.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is retrieved, that citations accompany results, and that abstention is possible. More detail on the shape of a returned typology (fields, citation format) would make it fully complete.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It partially does by giving two example question strings that show the expected natural-language style, but it never states constraints such as language, length, or whether keywords alone are acceptable.

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 states a concrete resource (laundering typology guidance from BankWeave's typology knowledge graph) and illustrates it with two sample typology queries, so an agent immediately understands what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as trace_money_path or run_readonly_cypher, leaving the distinction to inference, but the 'guidance/methodology vs. case data' framing is clear.

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?

Example phrasings ('fan-out then fan-in through mules', 'structuring below reporting threshold') imply the kind of question to bring here, which is useful implied usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative for agents who actually want to trace a specific path or query the graph directly.

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