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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds valuable semantic context beyond those hints: node presence is representation, not a truth or causal claim. It does not describe error behavior for missing nodes, but that is a minor gap against an otherwise strong annotation baseline.

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?

Two compact sentences plus a short caveat, with the primary action and required input front-loaded. Every sentence carries information; none is wasted.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description is almost complete: it explains the call, the ID form, and the relationship to neighbors. Because there is no output schema, a brief note on what node content is returned would make it fully self-contained.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description still adds useful examples (article:slug, glossary:term, source:id, field:id, axis:id) that clarify the typed-ID format beyond the schema’s two examples.

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 (Read), resource (one exact canonical knowledge-graph node), and input qualifier (typed node ID) with concrete examples. It distinguishes itself from knowledge_graph_neighbors by directing traversal to that sibling, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

It explicitly names knowledge_graph_neighbors as the tool for traversing relations, giving clear alternative guidance for one common task. It does not mention knowledge_graph_search or when to use exact fetch versus search, which leaves a modest routing gap.

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