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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so no extra safety disclosure is needed. The description adds useful behavior: label="Trend" returns a deterministic and complete list, and search may return partial results, helping the agent anticipate output reliability. It does not contradict the 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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second gives practical examples, and the third reveals an important golden-path behavior. No filler, tautology, or redundant restatement of the name.

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 read-only browsing tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, this description gives an agent everything needed: what the tool does, which inputs matter, and when its special deterministic behavior should be used. It is complete for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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% for graphId and label, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds semantic value by enumerating common labels and, importantly, by identifying the specific label='Trend' behavior that the schema alone would not express. It helps an agent choose the right value for the desired use case.

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 action ('List all brands, locations, technologies, audiences, or trends') tied to a clear resource ('within a specific knowledge graph'). It directly supports the tool's listing purpose and distinguishes it from search-oriented tools by emphasizing complete, enumerable label values rather than fuzzy matches.

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 a clear use context ('Use to explore what a graph contains') and concrete example questions, such as 'what brands are in the retail graph?'. It also explains a specific beneficial scenario for label="Trend" (finding complete lists in industry-report graphs) and contrasts it with search tools' partial results, though it does not name the alternative sibling tool explicitly.

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