context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the return format (relational Markdown with seeds, attributes, observations, links) and the hop-based traversal model, but says nothing about cost/performance of deep traversal, rate limits, or how an empty/partial match is handled.

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 one-line purpose followed by labeled WHEN TO USE and RETURNS sections; every sentence carries routing or payload information with no filler beyond minor wording repetition ('relational' twice).

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and traversal semantics, which is most of what an agent needs. It omits the 'domain' filter's effect and any note on how depth interacts with result volume.

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%, so all four parameters (query, depth, limit, domain) are already documented in the schema with defaults and bounds. The description only maps 'N hops' to depth and 'seed entities' to limit, adding marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Traverse the knowledge graph') plus the mechanism ('GraphRAG relational discovery') and scope ('outward up to N hops'). An agent can distinguish it from the sibling 'recall' 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?

Explicit WHEN TO USE section names the qualifying scenario (holistic multi-hop relational knowledge) and a DO NOT case with a named alternative ('use recall instead' for keyword search or token-budget lookups). This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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