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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it is best-effort, some edge deployments disable introspection, and failure yields a clear error with a suggested alternative tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by the failure mode and fallback. Every clause earns its place with no 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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description is complete: it describes what introspection returns (types, fields, flags, evaluation-context shape) and what happens on failure. An agent has everything it needs to call it and handle the error path.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on runtime behavior rather than parameter syntax.

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 and resource (run a GraphQL introspection query to discover the project's schema) and scopes the payoff (types, fields, available flags, evaluation context shape). It implicitly differentiates from siblings like hypertune_list_flags by framing this as schema discovery.

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?

Explains the use case (discover the schema, flags, and context shape) and gives a concrete fallback path when introspection is disabled — use hypertune_query with a known flag name. It stops short of stating when to prefer hypertune_list_flags over introspection, but the routing guidance is clear.

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