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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by detailing the return contents (entity keys and relationship keys) and clarifying that the schema is from a deployed project. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence summary, a returns line, and a highlighted usage tip. Every sentence provides distinct value with no repetition or fluff.

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 schema lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. Minor gaps exist (e.g., behavior if project is not deployed), but overall it is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with descriptions (project_id, environment) at 100% coverage. The description does not add extra parameter-level details beyond the schema, but it does imply the project must be deployed, which is contextual. Baseline 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the runtime schema of a DEPLOYED graph project' and specifies what it returns (entity types and relationship types). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_graph_schema or get_graph_schema_at_version by emphasizing the runtime/deployed aspect and its purpose for data operations.

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: 'USE THIS FIRST before creating nodes/relationships' and explains that it helps identify valid entity_type and rel_type values. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or alternatives, but the contextual guidance is strong enough for most use cases.

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