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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only reveals that include=["content"] inlines bodies, implying the default excludes them, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, mention any side effects, auth requirements, pagination behavior, or return structure. The description leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a tool of this type.

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 just three sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and packs in the key filters, the include behavior, and the cross-type alternative with zero fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 search tool with all-optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what is searched, the filters, and the include option. It points to the sibling for broader search. Pagination is self-evident from schema defaults; the only minor gap is that it does not explain the match parameter semantics or the free-text behavior of q beyond the schema description, but these are minor for a simple search context.

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 only 38%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It clearly explains q, tags, providers, and include, but does not explain page, limit, match, or context beyond what the schema provides (and those lack descriptions in the schema too). The description partially compensates but leaves gaps for pagination and matching logic.

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 the specific resource (GraphQL schemas) and implicitly a search action, then names the filters and the include option. It also distinguishes itself from find_artifacts by explicitly mentioning cross-type search as a different use case, making its purpose crisp and non-overlapping with siblings.

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 explicitly recommends find_artifacts for cross-type search, which provides guidance on when not to use this tool. However, it does not elaborate on other potential alternatives or prerequisites, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when a GraphQL-specific search is appropriate.

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