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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds return-behavior context beyond annotations: it says the response includes the time of last update and who updated it, which is useful and not conveyed by annotations. It doesn't discuss error cases or permissions, but with annotations carrying the safety profile, this is solid.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by context and inputs. Every sentence adds distinct value without redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description appropriately does not explain return structure, but does highlight what the response carries (last updated time and author). With read-only annotations, simple params, and full output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 names parameters (graphId, variant) without describing them. The description compensates partially by saying 'Provide the graph ID and the variant name', clarifying intent but adding no format or constraint details (e.g., ID format, variant casing). With only two simple required params, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Read) and resource (README of a graph variant), and distinguishes itself from the sibling PublishReadme (write counterpart). The description also explains what the README actually is ('the Markdown document shown on the variant's page in GraphOS Studio'), making the resource concrete rather than abstract.

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?

Provides a concrete routing signal by equating the tool to `rover readme fetch`, which tells the agent exactly when this is the right tool. It also states the identifying inputs required (graph ID and variant name). However, it does not explicitly call out exclusions or name the sibling it differs from (e.g., PublishReadme for writes).

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