schemaGraph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is fully covered. The description adds functional output details but not extra constraints or caveats such as scan limits affecting 'schema-wide' results; that context is only available in the maxTables parameter. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the sibling routing is placed at the end. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 an output schema, read-only annotations, and a clear sibling alternative, this is nearly complete. Minor gaps remain: the description doesn't clarify that the shortest-path inputs likely need both fromTable and toTable, and 'schema-wide' may be misleading given maxTables defaults to 50, though the parameter schema documents that.

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 high (83%), so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The tool description adds a little by linking 'optional shortest path' to the fromTable/toTable parameters, but it does not clarify relationships between parameters (e.g., whether both from and to are needed for a path) or the meaning of the undocumented 'schema' parameter.

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 ('Analyze') and resource ('schema-wide relationship topology'), and enumerates concrete outputs: graph nodes/edges, central or isolated tables, components, cycle hints, and optional shortest path. It also explicitly differentiates itself from findJoinPaths, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 an explicit alternative: 'Use findJoinPaths when only paths between two known tables are needed.' This clearly tells the agent when to prefer a sibling tool over schemaGraph, which is strong usage guidance.

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