Graph Correlation Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds modest context by specifying the read facets (state, receipts, freshness, conflicts, bounds), but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the correlation no longer exists. This is consistent with annotations, adding some but not rich value.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb 'Read', and no filler. Each listed facet adds meaning, and the tool relies on structured schema fields for the remaining details. Efficient and appropriately compact.

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 simple read-only status tool with 2 parameters (1 required), complete schema coverage, full annotations, and an output schema, the description adequately states what it reads. It would be slightly more complete if it explicitly indicated the prerequisite correlation workflow, but the parameter description already tells the agent that correlation_id is returned by graph_correlate, filling that gap.

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 100%, with both tenant_id and correlation_id already documented. The description contributes no parameter-level information beyond the schema; the key provenance fact that correlation_id comes from graph_correlate is already in the schema. Per baseline, 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and enumerates the resource facets: run state, receipts, freshness, conflicts, and analysis bounds. This clearly identifies it as a status/read tool for correlation graphs, and the read verb distinguishes it implicitly from siblings like graph_correlate. However, it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, so it falls just short of the top score.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of the expected workflow (e.g., after graph_correlate). The schema parameter description for correlation_id does imply the correlation flow, but the tool description itself offers no usage direction.

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