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

Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: a fixed fee of 0.005 USDC, determinism, evidence-boundedness, signing, and the restriction to only supplied data. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 brief and front-loaded with the primary purpose alert. The three clauses each add distinct information: what it builds, what it costs, and how it behaves. The punctuation/format is slightly awkward, but there is no wasted text.

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 tool with no defined schema parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the essential expectations: construction, privacy boundaries, cost, determinism, evidence, and signing. It lacks usage-direction details, but those belong to the usage dimension. Overall, an agent likely has enough to invoke 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?

The schema has no explicit parameters, so the 0-param baseline of 4 applies. The description compensates somewhat by indicating the input should consist of supplied nodes and edges, even though it does not define exact property names. Since the schema itself is an open object, the description adds at least directional meaning.

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 names a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('privacy-bounded economic relationships') and constrains scope to 'supplied nodes and edges'. It is distinct from more generic graph or relationship tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives. The added attributes 'Deterministic, evidence-bounded and signed' further clarify the output's nature.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'only from supplied nodes and edges' implies a privacy/scope constraint but does not state conditions, exclusions, or which sibling tools are more appropriate in other scenarios. An agent would have to infer usage context.

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