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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns schema elements and index kinds, but does not disclose return format, size, or behavior for a missing graph. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 reflects useful added context but not rich behavioral detail.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the resource and outputs first, then graph examples, then FalkorDB functions. Every sentence earns its place, though the trailing FalkorDB feature list is somewhat technical and could be trimmed without loss.

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 single-parameter read-only introspection tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the resource, the schema elements returned, index kinds, and example graph values. The main gap is lack of return structure or behavior for invalid graph names, but the annotations and single parameter keep the burden low.

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 0%, so the schema does not document the 'graph' parameter beyond its name and default. The description partially compensates by listing example graph names ('consortium', 'bank_<id>', 'case_<id>', 'typology_kb'), which is helpful, but the mapping of the 'bank_<id>'/'case_<id>' patterns is vague and there is no mention of an enum or valid-id format. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial compensation.

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+resource: it returns the schema of one graph, enumerating node labels, relationship types, property keys, and indexes with their kinds. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_readonly_cypher or list_graphs, which operate on data or enumerate graphs rather than describe a single graph's schema.

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?

Implicitly used before writing Cypher queries to learn the schema, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It does not name alternatives like run_readonly_cypher or explain how it complements them, leaving usage context to inference.

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