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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the graph includes, but does not explain whether this is a read-only operation, how data is sourced, or whether any side effects or performance implications exist. The word 'full' suggests it may be resource-intensive, but this is not clarified.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. It lists key elements without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the returned graph looks like, how to interpret it, and how the optional entity_id affects results. The description is too vague about the tool's behavior and output format, leaving gaps for an 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 schema has one parameter, entity_id, with a description 'Entity ID', giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics, but the schema already documents it adequately. The optional nature (0 required) is implied but not explicitly described.

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 identifies the tool's output as a full provider dependency graph and enumerates its contents (providers, systems, checks, blast radius, SPOF detection). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'generate' or 'return'.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. It does not say if it should be used for a single entity or all providers, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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