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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two useful behavioral facts: the returned shape is the canvas model, and viewer access is required. However, it says nothing about rate limits, pagination, error behavior, or what happens if the graph is missing.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The key content — return shape and access requirement — is front-loaded, which is appropriate for a single-parameter fetch tool.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive fetch tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what is returned and the access requirement. It is a bit thin on failure modes and sibling differentiation, but otherwise complete.

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 the sole parameter is already documented in the schema, including that the id comes from list_graphs. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (one graph's full live spec), and enumerates the returned content (nodes, edges, settings). This distinguishes it from list_graphs (enumeration) and update_graph_nodes (mutation).

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 implies usage by mentioning the graphId source ('from list_graphs') and the required access level, but it does not state when to choose this over alternatives like list_graphs or get_run. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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