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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses API key requirements, per-row quota accounting, pagination semantics, and warns about the schema size. This goes well beyond minimal safety details.

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 yet packed with essential information: purpose, query structure, a critical warning, and authentication/quota details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 complex GraphQL tool with no output schema, the description covers all critical operational aspects: what it does, how to structure queries, where to find the schema, what not to do, and quota implications. The optional output shape is inherently defined by the query itself, so no further explanation is needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful context for the query parameter (root fields, filters, pagination) but does not explain the variables parameter at all. Partial compensation, but a gap remains.

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 it runs a GraphQL query to fetch relational data in one call, specifying the verb, resource, and unique value proposition (nested relations). It differentiates itself from siblings like query_table by emphasizing GraphQL and relational nesting.

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 tells users when not to use it (introspection queries) and directs them to use describe_table instead, providing a clear alternative. It also implies the ideal use case: needing relational data in a single call vs REST.

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