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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it searches every text field, returns _match_fields identifying matching properties, and provides a concrete example. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core function, followed by a contrast, a use-case, an example, and an optional filter note. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or 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 read-only search tool with 6 parameters all described in the schema, the description covers the essential return behavior (_match_fields) and the key differentiating feature. It lacks explicit pagination/limit caveats, but those are already in the schema, and the 'deployed graph' context plus the search scope make it sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by clarifying that 'query' searches across all string properties with an example listing possible fields, and mentions the 'entity_type' filter. This supplements the schema's terse parameter descriptions with context on how the query behaves.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search across ALL string properties of ALL nodes in a deployed graph using free-text queries.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search_graph_nodes' by explicitly contrasting behavior, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 guidance is explicit: 'Perfect for finding knowledge when you don't know which property contains the answer' and names the alternative (search_graph_nodes) with its limitation. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use direction, exceeding basic context.

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