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

Annotations already establish read-only/non-destructive. The description adds a useful cost/latency warning about arbitrary queries, which is beyond annotations. It provides no other behavioral details such as failure modes or response size limits.

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 compact sentences with the core action first and the caution second. Every word earns its place; no boilerplate or repetition.

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 raw query escape hatch with no output schema, the warning about cost is useful, but an agent is not told how to discover the GraphQL schema, what a successful response looks like, or how params/variables interact. Adequate minimally but not complete.

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% for query, params, and variables. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only warns generally about expensive queries.

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 action ('Perform a raw GraphQL query') and resource ('the indexer'), clearly distinct from the many specialized peer_indexer_* siblings. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, so not a 5.

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?

Only warns 'Use sparingly; arbitrary queries can be expensive.' It gives no conditions for when this raw tool should be preferred over the numerous specialized peer_* tools, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives.

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