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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the tool returns a full graph payload (nodes, relationships, notes) rather than a summary, which is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the returned payload and ending with the practical next step. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so by enumerating node and relationship fields. Minor gap: nothing about behavior for very large models (truncation, pagination) or errors for invalid modelId.

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 100%; the modelId parameter already documents itself as coming from list_models or a model link. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 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?

Uses a specific verb ('Returns') plus the resource ('a model') and enumerates the returned sub-structures (layers, nodes, relationships, notes) with their fields, which is far more informative than the title. It does not explicitly contrast itself with list_models, so an agent must infer that list_models is the summary view and get_model the detailed one.

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?

'Use these ids with edit_model' gives a downstream workflow pointer, which implies the read-then-edit pattern. But there is no guidance on when to call get_model instead of list_models, and no statement that edit_model should not be called before fetching ids.

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