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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description does not contradict these. It adds value by stating the tool never raises a protocol error on invalid input, instead returning an error object with corrective guidance. It also reiterates 'Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry,' which reinforces the idempotentHint and provides extra context about retry safety.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with a strong purpose statement, lists concrete issues, provides an example, gives usage timing, explicitly names exclusions, and describes error behavior. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy. It earns its length.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (checking multiple graph issues), the presence of annotations, and the output schema, the description provides complete context. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, what to expect as output, error behavior, and side-effect safety. The example output clarifies the return structure, making the tool easy to call 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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter, describing it as 'The graph document to check.' The description goes beyond this by showing the typical input format {"graph": {...}} and the expected output structure, giving the agent a realistic sense of what to pass and what to expect back. This adds meaning beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find the breaks a memory graph accumulates as it grows.' It enumerates specific issues (dangling relations, orphan entities, near-duplicate names, contradictions) and provides a concrete input/output example. This distinguishes it from siblings like graph_diff and graph_compact.

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 states when to use: 'Use before trusting a graph you did not build, or on a schedule as memory grows.' It also explicitly names alternatives and what the tool is NOT for: 'Not for comparing two graphs (graph_diff) and not for shrinking one (graph_compact).' This provides clear usage guidance and exclusions.

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