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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile well. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the retrieval scope ('most recent check workflows', default limit 5), how the limit parameter influences behavior, and what data is returned. It discloses the pagination/limiting behavior clearly.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and follows with usage context. It efficiently states what's retrieved, the output contents, the usage purpose, and required inputs. Minor redundancy exists (mentions the limit twice) but overall it's compact and no extraneous sentences.

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 presence of an output schema reduces the burden to explain return values. The description covers what data is returned (coordinate, severity, message, rule, source, counts), the use case, and input requirements. The only gap is lack of param format details (e.g., what graphId format is expected), but with an output schema present and clear intent, this is reasonably complete for a read-only reporting tool.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for graphId or limit. The description compensates by stating 'Provide the graph ID' (identifying graphId) and 'optionally a limit (default 5 most recent check workflows)' which describes the limit parameter. However, it doesn't explain what graphId refers to (namespace, numeric ID, etc.) or the meaning/format of the limit beyond default value. Baseline is 3 given 0% coverage and the partial compensation provided.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Retrieve schema lint violations from a graph's most recent check workflows', and lists precise output content (coordinate, severity, message, rule, source location, counts). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on lint violations specifically, which differs from the other Apollo graph tools in the sibling list (metrics, launches, docs).

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?

The description states a clear context for use: 'Use to assess schema quality and naming/best-practice violations.' It names the inputs needed ('Provide the graph ID and optionally a limit') and even notes the default limit behavior ('default 5 most recent check workflows'). It doesn't explicitly call out when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough.

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