Find Join Path

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, closed-world operation, so the description is free to add behavioral detail — and it does: the path is limited to 'accepted' relationships, fan-out is warned about, and ambiguous roles (billing vs delivery city) are surfaced. It stops short of saying what happens when no path is found.

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?

One compact sentence with the core object front-loaded and no filler. The trailing list of outputs is slightly dense but each item conveys a distinct capability.

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?

The tool is simple (3 params, 2 required) and an output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out. The remaining gap is failure behavior — no path exists, or multiple datasources registered — which the datasource parameter's optionality hints at but the description never addresses.

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 source/target/datasource each documented, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that source/target accept either a Term or a table name, but adds no syntax, naming, or datasource-selection guidance 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 operation (shortest chain of accepted relationships) on a specific resource (two Terms or tables) and enumerates the payload (ON conditions, FROM/JOIN clause). This is clearly distinct from siblings like list_relationships or set_relationship, which enumerate or modify rather than compute a path.

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?

The description implies the usage context (you need a join between two entities and want a ready-made clause) but never states when to prefer it over list_relationships or get_query_context, nor when it is inappropriate (e.g. no accepted relationship exists).

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