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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context by disclosing the traversal logic—forward 'confuses_with' edges plus reverse 'incoming_references' from a manifest—but does not explain return format, depth, or pagination behavior.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The jargon is dense but compact, and the core operation is stated first.

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 graph traversal tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description states the core operation but leaves the return structure vague ('All dysfunctions' could mean IDs, objects, or edges). Annotations cover safety, but the agent still lacks details on result shape and parameter expectations.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter, but it does not. It never mentions 'dysfunction_id' or clarifies its format, source, or expected value beyond what the parameter name implies.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('All dysfunctions that confuse with this one') and the underlying mechanism ('forward confuses_with + incoming_references (reverse graph from manifest)'). It is specific enough to distinguish from a generic dysfunction lookup, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like differential_diagnosis or get_dysfunction.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description merely states what is returned, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is preferable to differential_diagnosis, get_dysfunction, or other graph-related siblings.

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