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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the return is a signed JWT for disconnected Enterprise use, and null is returned when offline licensing isn't enabled — a behavior an agent would otherwise misread as an error.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then supporting details about the JWT, the null case, and the required input. Four sentences all carry information, though the closing 'Provide the graph ID' is terse enough that it could have been folded into the first line.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields, and the rich annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with the null-case explanation and the precondition, the definition gives an agent nearly everything it needs; only parameter format detail is thin.

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 fill the gap; it only says 'Provide the graph ID' without format, example, or how to obtain the ID. That identifies the parameter but does not fully compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 and resource ('Fetch the offline Enterprise license') scoped to the organization that owns a graph, and grounds it in a known equivalent ('the same data that `rover license fetch` returns'). No sibling tool overlaps this resource, so the agent can pick it without ambiguity.

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 adds a real precondition — the org must have offline licenses enabled (a request to Apollo is required) — and warns that null is a normal outcome. There are no competing siblings to route between, so the lack of explicit exclusions is acceptable.

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