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

The annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds the useful context that the result is 'full deterministic', which goes slightly beyond the annotations, but it does not describe response shape, limits, or other behavior.

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 compact, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence contributes meaning. The examples are relevant and the contrast with search is stated efficiently without unnecessary words.

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, idempotent listing tool, the description gives an adequate mental model: what it lists, how to formulate the label, and when to prefer it over search. There is no output schema, but the tool is simple enough that the description effectively guides usage. The only minor gap is not specifying the return shape.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds one useful semantic: calling with label='Trend' returns the complete list. It does not add any additional explanation beyond the schema for graphId, userId, or property.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List all brands, locations, technologies, audiences, or trends within a specific knowledge graph.' Examples like 'what brands are in the retail graph?' make the scope crystal clear. It also differentiates itself from search by calling out 'full deterministic list' versus 'partial results'.

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 explicitly directs users to use this tool to explore graph contents and to call with label='Trend' when a complete list is needed. It also contrasts with 'search may return partial results', implying a search alternative, though it does not name the exact sibling to avoid.

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