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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint:false and openWorldHint:false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The only added behavioral note is the cryptic 'One graph file' and '[no key]', which hint at a static/cached artifact but are too vague to convey real behavior.

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?

It is short and opens with the return shape, which is reasonable front-loading. But the telegraphic fragments ('One graph file. [no key]') are unexplained filler that don't earn their place, and the purpose is only vaguely established.

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 needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Even so, the description never clarifies what a 'connection map' is, leaves the 'type' parameter undocumented, and confuses output fields (from/to) with inputs, leaving an agent without enough to invoke it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It restates the enum labels for level (book/chapter) and testament_filter (all/ot/nt) — redundant with the schema's enums — and completely omits the 'type' parameter (quotes/fulfilled/alludes/see-also). Worse, it explains 'from' and 'to', which are not parameters at all, likely edge fields.

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 the tool returns 'nodes and edges for the connection map,' which conveys the output shape of a graph resource, and it is not a pure tautology of the name. However, the core term 'connection map' is never defined (connections between what?), and it does not distinguish this full-graph tool from siblings like get_connections_by_book or get_connection_stats.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus get_connections_by_book, get_connection_stats, or get_cross_references. The sentences describe parameter values rather than situations that select this tool, leaving the agent to infer all context conditions.

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