describe_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that the guidance is static and works even when the API is unreachable, which is valuable context beyond annotations—indicating it is a precomputed reference, not a live query. No contradiction found.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the core content (vocabulary and usage) and ends with a practical guarantee (works offline). Every sentence earns its place; no redundant or verbose language.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it covers, and why it is reliable. An agent knows exactly when and how to use it, and no additional operational details are needed.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% and the baseline score of 4 applies. The description appropriately adds nothing about parameters, and no parameter-specific guidance is needed.

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 explains the graph's vocabulary and how to use the tool set, listing specific topics (edge kinds, interaction types, direction semantics, orientation, recommended call flow). This distinguishes it from data-retrieval siblings and gives a precise, actionable purpose.

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?

It implies usage as an onboarding/reference tool ('how to use these tools', 'recommended call flow') and notes it works even if the API is unreachable, suggesting it is always safe to consult. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this before other tools' or list when not to use it, which would strengthen guidance.

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