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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the return structure ('nodes with all fields plus explicit edges showing dependency relationships') — important since no output schema exists. It stops short of noting size limits or pagination, so not a 5.

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, zero filler, with the core action and the distinguishing output shape front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value and does so adequately by naming nodes and edges. It is slightly under-complete on error behavior and whether the graph can be partial or large, but nothing critical to invocation is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (requestId) with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about the identifier's origin or format beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Get the capability DAG for a request') and goes further by describing the returned shape as adjacency data with nodes and explicit edges. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like pcc_get_request or pcc_get_request_critical_path, so an agent must guess which graph view it wants.

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?

'Useful for visualization or workflow planning' implies a context of use but gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer that the critical-path sibling is the narrower option.

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