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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add semantics beyond that, which it does by framing this as a graph traversal over typed edges and by naming the contradiction-checking use case. It stops short of describing result shape, edge-density or truncation behaviour, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 tight sentences: the operation first, then the use case, then the contrast with the sibling. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and all four parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description supplies the missing conceptual layer — that results come from typed edges and can surface contradictions — leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents memory_id, limit, direction and relationship_types. The description's enumeration of edge types loosely maps to the relationship_types values, but it gives no syntax or default guidance for direction or limit, so this is the baseline case of the schema doing the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('follow the typed relationship graph out from one memory') and enumerates the edge semantics it traverses (supports, contradicts, summarises, continues, resembles). It explicitly differentiates itself from the likely sibling: 'Search answers what is relevant; this answers what is connected.'

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?

Gives concrete triggering conditions ('when the question is how facts relate', 'to check whether a memory you are about to rely on is contradicted by another') and names the competing approach (search) with the distinction that selects between them. Nothing is left to inference.

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