recall

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: exact-match-only resolution, that the return is the id alone, and how to chain for full text or neighbours. It omits whether the call is read-only and what permissions/scope it needs, which for a no-annotation tool is a remaining gap, but the substantive behavior is well covered.

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?

Three dense, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: match semantics, return shape plus chaining, then alternative/failure routing. Each sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant fact (exact match) leads.

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 correctly compensates by stating the return is just the id and how to follow up. Combined with alternatives and miss semantics, an agent has what it needs to call correctly; only the `initiative` parameter's role and any auth requirement remain unaddressed.

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 only 50%: the `name` param is documented in-schema (including UUIDv7 acceptance) but `initiative` has no description. The description's note that a miss reveals whether the name 'lives in another initiative' hints at scoping behavior but never states what the `initiative` parameter does, so it only partially compensates for the coverage 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 and resource ('Look up a node id') and pins down the matching semantics ('EXACT name — no fuzziness, no stemming'). It explicitly contrasts with the sibling `search`, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either 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 when-to-use ('by EXACT name'), the alternative for the opposite case ('When you don't know the exact name, `search` is the verb'), and follow-up actions (`at <name>`, `drill <name>`). Even the failure case is explained (a miss disambiguates spelling/initiative/absence).

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