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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return content (IDs, descriptions, authors, sectors, signal counts, topic coverage) and its role as a prerequisite, but does not elaborate on pagination or error 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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and output, then usage guidance. No redundancies; every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with rich annotations and a fully described schema, the description clearly states what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

The schema covers the only parameter (userId) with a full description, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add anything about parameters, but the schema does the heavy lifting, 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'), identifies the resource ('expert knowledge graphs'), and defines scope ('the user can access'). It also enumerates the returned attributes (IDs, descriptions, authors, sectors, signal counts, topic coverage), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_graph and get_node.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Use FIRST in any session to discover available sources before searching', providing clear timing and implying precedence over search tools. It also notes the metadata is needed for graphId parameters in other tools, reinforcing its role as a prerequisite.

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