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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds context about access control ('the user can access') and details what is returned (IDs, descriptions, authors, sectors, signal counts, topic coverage), going beyond the bare safety profile. It does not mention edge cases like empty results, but the annotations lower the bar.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and output contents; the second gives usage timing and downstream value. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is optimally 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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage context, and return metadata. It also clarifies the relationship to other tools via graphId, making it a complete entry point for a session.

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%: the only parameter userId has a clear description. The tool description doesn't add extra parameter-level detail, but it is consistent with 'user can access' and the schema already covers semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('expert knowledge graphs') and scope ('the user can access'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_graph by positioning as a discovery step before searching, with explicit mention of returning graphId parameters for other tools.

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 usage timing: 'Use FIRST in any session to discover available sources before searching.' It also explains downstream utility ('needed for graphId parameters in other tools'), making it clear when this tool should be invoked relative to alternatives.

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