Get DAR GraphQL schema (API key)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the API key requirement, the ~80,000-character raw size, that doc comments are stripped by default, and that output truncates at 60,000 characters. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs and cannot get from annotations.

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?

Well front-loaded with the auth requirement and resource first, then size/behavior, then the two params with examples. Every sentence carries actionable information (auth, size, default stripping, filter syntax, docs toggle, truncation) with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description compensates fully by describing the return shape: SDL text, doc comments stripped by default, and truncation at 60,000 characters. Combined with the auth requirement and filter semantics, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely enriches both params: filter is explained as matching type/input/enum blocks by case-insensitive name substring with two illustrative examples, and include_docs is clarified as retaining field definitions and legal references. This goes beyond the terse schema descriptions.

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: 'Fetch the GraphQL schema (SDL) for DAR/v2'. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling dar_graphql, which executes queries, since this tool retrieves the schema itself.

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?

Explains the operative context well: it requires DATAFORDELER_API_KEY and describes the default doc-stripped behavior versus include_docs. It gives concrete filter usage examples, but never explicitly states when to prefer this over dar_graphql (e.g. before writing a query), so routing to the alternative is left implicit.

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