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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context beyond the schema: max_depth is capped at 10 (a constraint absent from the schema) and the return value is a node sequence. However, it does not disclose what happens when no path exists within max_depth, error behavior, or whether the operation is strictly read-only.

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?

One purpose sentence followed by compact Args/Returns sections. Zero filler, purpose front-loaded, and the parameter documentation is structured and scannable. The Spanish phrasing matches the domain naming (hipocampo) and every line earns its place.

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 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, every parameter, and the return shape. The one clear gap is the no-path-found outcome (empty sequence, null, or error), which is a realistic scenario for a shortest-path tool and is left unspecified.

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 — and it does completely. from_id and to_id are explained as memory IDs (recuerdo origen/destino), and max_depth gets both its meaning ('Profundidad máxima de búsqueda'), its default (5), and a max constraint (10) that the schema omits.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Encuentra el camino más corto entre dos recuerdos en el grafo de memoria' (finds the shortest path between two memories in the memory graph). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_hipocampo (retrieval), graph_hipocampo (whole-graph operations), and link_hipocampo (edge creation).

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?

The pairwise framing ('entre dos recuerdos') implies the use case — determining connectivity between two specific memories — but the description never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over search_hipocampo, graph_hipocampo, or quick_hipocampo_search, nor does it state when not to use it. Usage must be inferred from the stated behavior rather than explicitly guided.

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