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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context beyond annotations by revealing that label='Trend' returns a 'full deterministic list,' and that search may return partial results. This helps an agent understand completeness behaviors not visible in the schema or annotations.

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?

Three purposeful sentences: the first states the core behavior, the second gives an example of the expected question type, and the third provides a targeted non-obvious tip. No content is wasted and the key behavior is front-loaded.

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 annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description adds enough operational guidance for common usage. It explains graph vs. search behavior and gives actionable examples for parameter selection. It doesn't describe the return format, but because the tool is a straightforward list operation, this is not a major gap.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by clarifying that label='Trend' yields a complete, deterministic list and by giving concrete examples of graph-content exploration. It does not deeply explain every parameter, but the schema already documents them thoroughly.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all brands, locations, technologies, audiences, or trends within a specific knowledge graph.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by contrasting it with search, which 'may return partial results.' This lets an agent immediately identify the tool's scope and function.

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 gives explicit use cases such as 'what brands are in the retail graph?' and indicates when to prefer this tool for a complete list via label='Trend'. It implicitly routes away from search for full lists, but it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state hard when-not-to-use conditions.

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