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

Annotation already covers readOnlyHint=true, so 'Reads only' is redundant. The description earns credit by disclosing what the audit actually inspects (log noise, unnamed entity mentions, duplicated records) and by imposing a presentation constraint on the agent. With no output schema, it still leaves the 'card' format undefined.

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 opening sentence is an unstructured run-on that strings five distinct finding types together with no separators, making it harder to scan than a bulleted enumeration would be. The two trailing imperatives are tight and front-loaded at the end. Roughly the right length, poor internal structure.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and a readOnly annotation, the main risk is ambiguity about what comes back — and the description compensates by enumerating the finding categories. The reference to 'the card it names' is the one loose end, since no card type is specified.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the schema is fully covered. Baseline 4 applies; no additional meaning is needed or given.

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 names a specific diagnostic resource and enumerates the finding categories it produces: object counts per type, machine-log noise, dangling named entities, duplicate records, and re-saved documents. An agent can tell this is a graph-cleanliness audit rather than a generic search or list. It never names a sibling, so differentiation from list_duplicate_suggestions or what_needs_attention is left to inference.

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?

It gives one concrete workflow instruction ('let the reader decide group by group; never write the findings out as a table yourself'), which shapes how output is handled. It does not say when this audit is preferable to sibling diagnostics like list_duplicate_suggestions, similar_objects, or what_needs_attention. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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