quipu_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are entities plus their facts and that link expansion is optional, but it says nothing about truncation, ranking defaults, or what happens when the query matches nothing — gaps that matter for a retrieval tool whose output shape is otherwise undocumented.

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?

Two short, front-loaded clauses: the action and return shape come first, the optional expansion second. Little is wasted, though "ready to prime an agent" is slightly promotional rather than informational.

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 carries some of the burden and does state that entities and facts come back. For a four-parameter retrieval tool in a crowded search family, however, it lacks result limits, ordering semantics, and any statement of how scope (graph/namespace) is determined — leaving calling behavior partly undefined.

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 100%, so the schema already explains query, ppr_rerank, expand_links, and max_entities. The description's "Optionally expand to linked entities" merely restates the expand_links parameter without adding syntax, tradeoffs, or guidance on when the expansion or PageRank reranking is worth enabling, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Query the knowledge graph") and states the shape of the result ("relevant entities and their facts, ready to prime an agent"), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many retrieval siblings such as quipu_search, quipu_unified_search, quipu_hybrid_search, or quipu_ask, so an agent must guess which retrieval entry point to pick.

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?

"Ready to prime an agent" implies the intended use case (context priming before an agent task), and "Optionally expand to linked entities" hints at a broader-vs-narrower retrieval choice. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the numerous search siblings, so routing must be inferred.

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