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). The description adds behavior the annotations don't: it does not scrape human pages, returns canonical zenitheye.net URLs, and supports optional type restriction. It stops short of describing ranking or pagination, keeping it at a solid 4.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The core action, the optional constraint, and the follow-up tool are each front-loaded in their own sentence.

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 no output schema, the description helpfully notes that results are canonical zenitheye.net URLs, covering the main return expectation. Remaining gaps like result ordering or how to page past limit are minor for a straightforward search tool.

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 q, limit, and node_type are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that the type restriction is optional, adding no syntax or matching detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search canonical graph node identifiers, names and descriptions') and clarifies the scope is graph nodes rather than human pages. It also names the sibling knowledge_graph_neighbors and the point at which to switch to it, so an agent can separate the two tools without opening a 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?

Gives clear routing guidance: use this search first, then 'use knowledge_graph_neighbors after selecting a node to traverse explicit relations'. There is no explicit when-not condition or mention of knowledge_graph_node/overview, but the forward path is unambiguous.

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