list_graduations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains pagination behavior (cursor/next, stop when next is null), the singular constraint on source, and the purpose of filter parameters. It does not mention rate limits, safety, or response format, but for a read-only listing tool the disclosed behaviors cover the key usage pitfalls.

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 four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then usage details. There is no fluff or repetition. It could be slightly more compact by merging the filter guidance, but every sentence earns its place, covering the essential calling pattern.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not fully complete. It thoroughly covers pagination and filter intent, but omits the purpose of 'to' and 'from' and gives no indication of the response shape beyond the 'next' field. An agent could still call it correctly if it knows the domain, but there are notable gaps in parameter meaning.

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 coverage is only 43% (3 of 7 params have descriptions), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for minLiquiditySol and excludeMayhem ('filter junk') and reinforces that source is not an array. However, it leaves 'to' and 'from' entirely unexplained (likely a time range), and does not clarify the semantics of 'limit' beyond what the schema already states. Partial compensation for the gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'One page of recent graduations/migrations.' It clearly identifies the scope (recent, one page) and the resource type, which distinguishes it from siblings like list_creations by subject matter. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools to help disambiguation, so it falls short of 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?

The description gives operational guidance on pagination ('call again with cursor set to previous next') and filtering ('Use minLiquiditySol / excludeMayhem to filter junk'), which helps when calling the tool. But it does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like list_creations or list_token_trades; the context is implied by the resource name only. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.

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