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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that record counts are read from each node's index and listing the fields returned. It does not mention pagination or performance characteristics, but the safety profile is well covered.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, and it front-loads the core claim about listing nodes. The use of en-dashes and domain jargon like 'node door' and 'as-of' slightly reduces clarity, but the text is appropriately compact.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description gives enough context about what the tool returns and how counts are derived. It does not explain 'node door' or 'as-of', but these are likely defined by the output schema or domain context, making the description largely complete.

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?

This tool has 0 parameters contaminants, so the schema covers the input surface completely. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool lists graph nodes, one per jurisdiction, and includes record counts, node door, and as-of. This is a specific verb+resource combination. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, which prevents a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus siblings like get_record, list_aliases, or list_events_since. The context implies it is the way to enumerate nodes, but there is no explicit when-to-use or alternative routing.

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