find_paths

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context with 'shortest and most confident paths first', telling the agent about result ordering. It does not disclose hop limits, what happens when no path exists, or how the relations filter constrains traversal.

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 sentences, no filler, and the example does most of the explanatory work efficiently. The trade-off is that the core verb is never stated outright ('How two entities are connected' rather than 'Find paths between two entities'), so the purpose is more shown than declared.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only nature. However, with only 50% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented max_hops and relations parameters, and it says nothing about either.

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?

Placeholder.

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 identifies a specific capability — finding connection paths between two entities — and the ASML -SUPPLIES-> TSMC -SUPPLIES-> AMD example makes the output shape concrete. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling, neighbors, but the path/graph-traversal framing is distinctive enough that an agent can tell them apart.

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?

Usage is only implied: the example of a two-entity chain suggests this is for multi-hop connection questions rather than direct adjacency. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. neighbors for one-hop lookups, search for discovery).

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