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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the response is the whole untruncated document, can be extremely large, and may exceed model context windows.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then adds only useful context: the rover equivalence, size warning, and alternative tool routing. Every sentence contributes to correct selection or safe use.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return-value details are less necessary. Given that, the description covers the important selection tradeoff, response size risk, and invocation inputs sufficiently for its complexity.

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 description must carry the burden of explaining the two parameters. It only says to provide the graph ID and variant name, which repeats the property names without defining what a variant is or adding format or selection guidance.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it reads the SDL schema currently published to a graph variant, including hash and publication time. It clearly distinguishes this from reading a single subgraph by naming GetSubgraphSchema as the preferred alternative.

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 says to prefer GetSubgraphSchema and to use this tool only when the whole API schema is needed, giving a clear when-not condition. It also states the required inputs, graph ID and variant name, so the invocation context is clear.

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