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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only restates the query intent. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how as_at_ms affects results, whether dpop_token is required, or what the return shape looks like.

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 with no wasted words. However, it is somewhat too terse to be fully informative, though this is a conciseness strength rather than a flaw.

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 tool with four parameters (including time-travel and auth tokens) and no output schema, a one-sentence description is incomplete. It omits return values, parameter semantics, and any behavioral or usage context, making it insufficient for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 50%, but the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the word 'capability,' which already maps to the required 'name' parameter. The optional npub, as_at_ms, and dpop_token parameters are left undocumented in both the schema and description, so the description does not compensate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Answer') and clearly identifies the resource ('which invariants guard a capability'). It distinguishes itself from sibling audit tools by focusing on the 'guards' relationship between invariants and a capability, which is unique among the cypher_audit_* family.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or related tools like cypher_audit_what_contradicts or cypher_invariant_provenance, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and one-line purpose.

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