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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral details about pagination (limit/offset) and ordering (newest first), which goes beyond the annotations but does not disclose other potential behaviors such as error conditions or return format. This is acceptable given the annotations but not exceptionally rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by key usage details (pagination, ordering). Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

The description covers the essential aspects: entity type scoping, pagination, and ordering. It does not mention the environment parameter, but that is fully documented in the schema. Lack of an output schema means the description could briefly note the return format, but for a list operation this is not a critical gap. The description is sufficiently complete for a read-only listing tool with strong annotations.

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%, with all five parameters documented. The description mentions limit/offset in the context of pagination, which reinforces the schema but does not add meaning beyond it. Since the schema fully handles parameter semantics, the baseline of 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 lists nodes of a specific entity type from a deployed graph project, using the specific verb 'list' and identifying the resource (nodes) and scope (entity type). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_graph_node (single node) and search_graph_nodes (search), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for listing nodes by entity type and mentions pagination, but does not explicitly address when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_graph_nodes or get_graph_node. There is no when-not or alternative guidance, so usage context is only implied, not explicit.

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