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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description's added value is the ordering guarantee (newest first), counts-by-type in the result, and offset-based paging semantics. These are genuine behavioral traits beyond the annotation, though it says nothing about rate limits, result caps beyond the schema's max, or auth requirements.

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?

Front-loads the core action and ordering in the first sentence, then layers filtering, edge cases, paging, and the alternative tool in a logical order. Slightly long due to the type enumeration and examples, but each sentence carries distinct information.

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 read-only listing tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what is returned (objects plus type counts), ordering, filtering options, paging, and routing to the correct sibling. Nothing material 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description enriches the 'type' parameter with concrete accepted values (person, company, hubspot_contact, file, fact, web_link, note, connected spaces) and explains offset's paging intent in user terms. This meaningfully exceeds what the one-line schema descriptions convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (List graph objects) plus scope details: newest-first ordering and counts by type. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_graph_objects by naming it as the tool for name-based lookup.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use branches: filter by type to browse one kind (with quoted user-intent examples), omit it to survey the whole graph, and page with offset to read past the newest. It also names the preferred alternative for finding by name (search_graph_objects) and disambiguates twitter_contact vs twitter_profile.

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