Describe the schema

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the burden is lower. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact, that no database is required, but says nothing about the size/shape of the response or cost of calling it.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the resource is named first, then the payload contents, then the no-database constraint as a fragment. Nothing is wasted, though the trailing fragment is slightly telegraphic rather than a full clause.

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?

With no output schema, the description must hint at what comes back, and it does so by listing node/edge kinds, tier rules, and query vocabulary. For a zero-param introspection tool this is nearly complete; a sentence on how to use the returned vocabulary would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and the description correctly implies a call with no arguments.

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?

Names a specific resource, 'the schema this server speaks', and enumerates its contents (node and edge kinds, tier rules, query vocabulary), which distinguishes it from the sibling query tools like codetopo_index or codetopo_path. The verb is only implicit ('describe' lives in the name/title), and it never explicitly contrasts itself against siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Needs no database' implies this can be called before any index exists, which is a usable contextual cue. However, it never states when an agent should reach for this versus codetopo_index or codetopo_stats, nor any exclusions, so usage is only implied.

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