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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema contents (e.g., that it should precede cypher_query). No contradictions, but also no additional details about rate limits, auth, or exact response format. Given the simple nature of the tool and existing annotations, this is adequate.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a clear usage directive. There is no waste, and every word earns its place. The mix of English and Portuguese is concise and understandable.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete: it names the schema elements and gives usage context. It could explicitly state the return format, but that is implied by 'Node labels, relationship types e property keys'. The 'Use antes de cypher_query' provides important workflow context, making the description effective for an AI agent.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than any parameter details.

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 states what the tool returns: 'Node labels, relationship types e property keys do grafo' (graph schema components). It clearly identifies the resource (graph schema) and differentiates it from sibling tools, which focus on queries, diseases, papers, etc. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'return' or 'get', relying on the tool name for the action.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use antes de cypher_query' (Use before cypher_query), telling the agent when in the workflow to invoke this tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but for a schema-retrieval tool, the ordering guidance is highly relevant and clear.

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