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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes the safety profile, so the bar for extra behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds useful behavior—'newest first, with counts by type' and 'page with offset'—beyond what the schema or annotations state. It does not reveal the full response shape, but for a read-only list tool this is a minor gap.

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?

Four sentences, all informative, with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The examples in parentheses are compact and illustrate real agent queries without bloating the description.

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 simple, read-only list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: purpose, ordering, filtering options, paging, and when to prefer a sibling tool. The annotations and schema already carry the remaining details.

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 all three parameters are already described structurally. The description adds semantic value by explaining the intended use of 'type' (browse one kind versus see everything) and 'offset' (reading past the newest results). This goes beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 and resource: 'List objects in the user's graph, newest first, with counts by type.' It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by explaining what 'graph' means and explicitly contrasting with search_graph_objects. An agent can tell this apart from get_graph_object, query_graph_objects, and create_graph_object without inspecting schemas.

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 concrete when-to-use guidance: filter by type to browse one kind, omit it for an overall view, and page with offset. It also names an alternative for a different need: 'For finding something by name, prefer search_graph_objects.' This is clear routing that helps the agent choose correctly.

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