get_secgraph_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and safe behavior. The description adds value by explaining the output is a curated summary, includes 'temporal-trust caveats,' and 'honest limits (CIK-only, snapshot vs dated layers, no prediction).' This goes beyond the annotations to inform the agent about content and limitations without contradicting them.

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 sentences that immediately state the core purpose and then expand with important context. There is no fluff; every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear and front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what is returned (schema, tool catalog, limits), why it exists (grounding, tool selection), and its honest limitations. This fully equips an agent to invoke the tool appropriately.

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 has zero parameters and the input schema is empty (100% coverage by default). The description does not need to elaborate on parameters. As a no-parameter tool, the baseline is 4, and no additional param semantics are required.

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 it returns the 'curated secgraph ownership schema and tool catalog for grounding.' This is a specific verb+resource, and the clarification that it is 'a hand-curated summary... not a raw graph dump' distinguishes it from sibling tools that return specific analyses. The purpose is unambiguous and contextually differentiated.

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 usage for grounding and tool selection: 'so an agent can pick the right tool' and 'for grounding.' It also notes 'not a raw graph dump' to set expectations. While it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use, the intended use case is clear enough for an agent to decide appropriately.

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