find_connection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: which relationship types are traversed, that the result is a Mermaid flowchart, and that a no-connection case is reported.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then method, then two concrete examples, then routing guidance. Slightly long with two examples, but each sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 compensates fully by specifying the return format (Mermaid flowchart), the traversal relationship types, and the empty-result behavior. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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% with two simple string params, so the schema carries the burden and baseline 3 applies. The description does not add syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides for person1/person2.

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 precise verb (trace) and resource (shortest family relationship path between two biblical people), and explicitly names the sibling tool explore_genealogy as the differentiator. An agent can distinguish it from every other sibling 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 explicit context ('Relevant for questions about how two named figures relate') plus a named alternative with its divergence ('explore_genealogy returns one person's ancestors or descendants rather than a path between two people'). This routes the agent cleanly between the two.

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