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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results are paginated and returned with a nextCursor and that the source is an owned published graph, though it doesn't detail ordering or page-size behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is listed, how to use the result, and what it is not. Front-loaded with the action and resource with zero 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 read-only list tool with complete schema coverage, the definition covers purpose, routing, and the pagination return signal. With no output schema, it might state a bit more about the returned node fields, but the essential call/continue contract is present.

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 100%, so the schema already documents cursor, pageSize, projectId, and sessionId. The description's pagination/nextCursor mention mirrors rather than extends the schema, making the baseline 3 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 precise verb and resource: 'List parentless nodes of an owned published graph.' It scopes the resource (owned, published, parentless) and explicitly contrasts itself with get_graph_scope, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_context_graph and graph_read without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('choose a starting node'), names the downstream alternative (get_graph_scope reads a chosen node's scope), and adds an exclusion ('This is not session context'). Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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