between

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose real traits: bidirectional traversal, evaluation 'at NOW' (a point-in-time snapshot), and that edges are typed with an enumerated ontology. However, it says nothing about what happens when no edge exists, whether results are paginated or bounded, permission requirements, or error behavior for unknown node names.

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 the core behavior before the alternatives, and only two sentences. The 11-value edge-type enumeration is long but substantive rather than filler, since it defines the kind of answer returned.

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 must explain the return shape, and it partially does: typed edges, both directions, snapshot at NOW. It leaves the empty-result case and result bounds unaddressed, but the core contract for calling the tool correctly is present.

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 description mentions no parameters at all. Schema coverage is 67%: 'a' and 'b' are documented in the schema, but 'initiative' has no description anywhere and defaults to null, so an agent cannot learn its meaning from either source. The description does not compensate for this documented gap.

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+resource ('Show every edge between two nodes, both directions') and frames the question it answers ('are A and B connected, and how?'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings 'path' and 'drill' by contrast, so an agent can identify it without reading any 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?

Explicit routing: 'path finds a route when there is no direct edge; drill lists neighbours rather than edges.' Both the when-to-use and the when-to-use-something-else conditions are stated against named alternatives.

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