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 describes the return value (a Markdown document with specific sections) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only and side-effect-free. The verb 'Return' implies a read operation, but for a tool without annotations, a more explicit statement (e.g., 'This does not modify any data') would be more transparent.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then lists the document's contents. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's output, with no redundancy or irrelevant details.

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?

The tool has one parameter with an enum and a clear description, and the description fully explains what the returned document contains. No output schema is present, but the description adequately covers the return format and content. For a simple getter, nothing essential is missing.

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 already provides a description for the single parameter ('Name of the built-in notation') and an enum listing valid values (['IBIS']). The tool description adds no further semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, the description's minimal parameter info is acceptable, but it does not enrich the parameter's meaning.

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 verb ('Return') and resource ('self-describing Markdown document for a built-in VGraph notation'), and enumerates the document's contents (purpose, usage, node types, edge types, history, references). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling create_* tools, which focus on creation rather than documentation.

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 when to use this tool (when you need the documentation for a notation) by listing the document's contents, including 'when to use it.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling create_* tools or state when not to use it. Given that siblings are all creation tools, the usage context is clear but not explicitly exclusionary.

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