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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, deterministic read operation. The description adds that it returns ranked concepts and is a summary overview, but does not disclose output format or edge cases. This is consistent with annotations and adds modest value.

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, front-loaded sentence that begins with the action ('Return the most-referenced concepts') and only adds relevant context about when to use it. Every word earns its place, with no 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?

For a simple read-only tool with an output schema, one optional parameter, and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It states the purpose and use case, and the schema covers top_n. It might benefit from mentioning whether it returns only concept names or full details, but this is not necessary given the output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100%: the single parameter top_n is fully described in the schema ('How many concepts to return, ranked by number of connections'). The description does not add any parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool returns the most-referenced concepts in the Gonka documentation graph, providing a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_node and get_neighbors by focusing on a global overview rather than node-specific operations, and gives concrete examples (architecture, collateral, inference).

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 provides clear usage context: 'when you don't know where to start' and describes it as a quick overview of core topics. It implies this is an entry-point tool for orientation, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it. The context is sufficient for a basic understanding.

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