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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful context that this backs a live UI card rather than a user-facing read, but says nothing about failure behavior when fileId or chartPath is invalid, or what the returned context looks like.

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 short sentences, zero padding, with the purpose stated first and the usage restriction immediately after. Every sentence carries 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 two-parameter, fully documented, annotated read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the one thing the agent most needs: that it should not be called directly. Return-value detail is unnecessary here because the tool is explicitly not for agent consumption.

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% and the schema itself already warns that fileId is the .artifact folder ID and never an embedded report file ID. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies a specific function: supplying context so the artifact card can draw a live Insights report. It is clearly distinct from get_insights_report, though the verb 'get' plus 'context' is less concrete than a description of what data is actually returned.

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?

It states explicitly that this is not for direct use and names the correct alternative (get_insights_report) for reading a report. An agent cannot mistake the routing, which is exactly the guidance needed for an internal-only tool.

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