quipu_search_facts

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 without description help. The description adds that matching applies to predicate or value, which is genuinely behavioral, but says nothing about ranking, result ordering, or pagination beyond the max_results parameter. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is adequate rather than rich.

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 action in the first sentence, with the matching semantics immediately after. The final sentence, 'Replaces Graphiti's search_memory_facts,' is a migration footnote that does not help an agent decide or invoke, but the body is otherwise tight.

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?

Four parameters with one required, no output schema, and the description never indicates what a returned fact looks like (endpoints, predicate, provenance) or how results are ranked. For a read-only search tool that is a real gap an agent must discover by trial. Annotations cover safety, but the retrieval shape is left unspecified.

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 all four parameters (query, verbose, group_ids, max_results) are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description's 'predicate or value matches the query' gives a hint about how the query string is interpreted, but adds no syntax or filtering semantics beyond the schema text.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search for relationships/edges in the knowledge graph') and narrows the scope to facts whose predicate or value matches. That is enough to separate it from a node-search sibling, though it never names quipu_search_nodes or quipu_unified_search explicitly. The trailing migration note about Graphiti adds no functional clarity.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the sibling list contains many overlapping retrieval tools (quipu_search, quipu_hybrid_search, quipu_unified_search, quipu_ask, quipu_search_nodes). The clause about predicate-or-value matching implies the scope of retrieval but does not tell an agent which tool to pick when it wants entities rather than edges.

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