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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful caveat, 'returns graph evidence, not certification', which prevents the agent from overselling results. It says nothing about which query types require source_revision_id, whether results are truncated, or how evidence is shaped.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and ending with the important evidentiary caveat. Every clause corresponds to a family of supported queries; there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 inspection tool with no output schema, the description covers what is inspected, the standard frameworks involved, and the limits of the returned evidence. Given annotations carry the safety profile and the schema carries parameter structure, the remaining gap around enum-to-purpose mapping is the only notable absence.

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 itself documents all three parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's enumerated analysis categories loosely correspond to some of the 23 enum values but never maps a requested analysis to the correct `type` value, leaving an unusually large enum undifferentiated.

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 specific verb (Inspect) and resource (safety-engineering graph) and enumerates the findings it can surface: traceability, lifecycle/implementation coverage, orphaned artifacts, implementation gaps, compliance gaps. That is far more informative than the bare tool name. It stops short of a 5 because it never distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings such as traverse_pspp_graph, get_graph_completeness, or plan_graph_query_sequence.

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 list of analysis scenarios implies when to reach for this tool, and the ISO 26262 / IEC 61508 / ISO 13849 mention signals the compliance-audit context. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to the sibling tools that overlap heavily with these same checks, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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