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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only says it 'finds' and 'probes', which implies sending network requests but does not state whether it is read-only, what actions it performs, or any potential impact on the target. The minimal disclosure lacks safety or permission context, leaving the agent without critical operational knowledge.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, it is under-specified for the required information, which is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness issue, so it earns a high score here.

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 (a network probe with one parameter and an output schema), the description is far from complete. It fails to define the input, clarify the output (though the output schema might cover that), or provide any usage context. An agent would have to make risky assumptions about how to 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'q' parameter at all. It hints at 'per-target' but never explicitly states that q is the target domain/IP or what format is expected. With a single undocumented parameter, the agent cannot correctly populate it without guessing.

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 states a specific action ('Probe' and 'Find') on a clear resource ('GraphQL endpoint') and mentions introspection, which is specific enough to distinguish it from generic HTTP probes. It also includes 'per-target' indicating scope. However, it does not name any sibling tool for contrast, so it doesn't fully leverage differentiation.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like swagger or httpmethods, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. 'per-target' implies it works on a target, but there is no when-to-use context. The agent is left to infer that it should be used when GraphQL discovery is needed.

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