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

The description clarifies it performs parse-only validation, implying no side effects or network calls. With no annotations, this is adequate disclosure. However, it could mention that it does not execute the query or that invalid syntax triggers an error.

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 sentence, front-loads the action and resource scope, with no extraneous words. It is highly concise and structured effectively.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and scope. It could be improved by hinting at the output (e.g., returns whether valid or throws error). Otherwise, it is mostly 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 0%, so the description must compensate but only says 'Validate GraphQL query or schema SDL syntax.' It does not describe the 'text' parameter explicitly (e.g., expected content, format). The parameter remains unclear.

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 states the tool validates GraphQL query or schema SDL syntax, with a specific verb (validate) and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like graphql_operations_list or graphql_schema_diff by focusing on parsing/validation.

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 implies use for syntax checking ('parse only') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like graphql_schema_diff for schema comparison or graphql_operations_list for operation extraction. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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