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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description is not carrying the safety burden. It adds real behavioral context beyond them: endpoints are validated, and the tool does not perform infrastructure discovery. Missing are what happens on validation failure and whether output is returned as text or file.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and artifact, then the constraint. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. However, with 6 required parameters and a level enum, the description omits how the two levels differ in required model content — a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must compensate; it names the entity categories (people, systems, containers, relations) and implies the level choice, plus 'validates endpoints' hints that relation from/to must reference declared ids. It does not explain the id pattern, the maxItems caps (15 people / 30 containers / 80 relations), or which collections apply at context vs container level.

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 artifact: builds C4 context or container diagrams in Mermaid from explicit people, systems, containers and relations. That specificity separates it from generic siblings like architecture_diagram or sequence_diagram, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'From explicit ... no infrastructure discovery' implies the caller must supply the full model rather than expect discovery, which is useful usage context. But there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-architecture_diagram or sequence_diagram guidance, and no prerequisites stated.

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