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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose what a call returns (entity paths and gap analysis) and, by implication, that this is a read-style query, but it says nothing about whether traversal has cost/latency implications, how gaps are reported, or what happens when no path is found.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence stating action, input modality, and output shape with no filler. Nothing is wasted and the most important information leads.

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 only two well-documented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials, and the mention of entity paths and gap analysis substitutes for a missing return-type definition. It falls short of complete only because it omits routing guidance against the many sibling search/list tools.

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 100%, with both parameters documented including the 1-4 hop range and default. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it does not explain how traversal depth affects answer quality or cost — so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Ask') with a specific resource ('the knowledge graph') and states the response shape ('structured answer with entity paths and gap analysis'). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names a sibling (e.g., list_entities or search_vault) to distinguish graph Q&A from plain entity listing or vault search.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'natural language question' framing suggests exploratory lookups rather than exact-match retrieval, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no statement of when a sibling like search_vault or list_entities would be the better choice.

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