find_connection

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds real value by disclosing that only ONE shortest path is returned (not all paths) and that a disconnected pair yields a 'structured not-connected result' rather than an error. However, it omits that the search is bounded (max_depth defaults to 4), which means a 'not connected' answer may actually be a depth-truncation artifact — an important behavioral nuance left undisclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is the right shape for a narrow query tool. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves nothing to disambiguate it from neighboring tools.

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, no parameter documentation, and only a readOnly annotation, the description should explain the two return shapes and the depth bound; it gestures at the result shapes but leaves the max_depth semantics and identifier expectations entirely to the caller's guesswork.

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 carries the full burden, and it explains none of the three parameters. person_a/person_b are only obliquely implied by 'relationship path', and max_depth — which materially changes whether a connection is found — is never mentioned, nor is whether the person inputs are names or IDs.

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 and result ('Return one shortest relationship path') plus the failure shape, so the operation is clear. It never names the adjacent siblings (get_relationship_graph, explain_shared_connections), so an agent must infer how 'shortest path between two people' differs from a full graph dump or a shared-connections explanation.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the obvious alternatives in the sibling list. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'relationship path' — nothing tells the agent whether to reach for this versus get_relationship_graph or explain_shared_connections.

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