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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world operation, lowering the disclosure burden. The description adds that the output is a deck_block drawn as a chart and usable in documents_create_deck, plus a 'Free' cost signal, but limits and output format are not described.

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?

The text is short and front-loads the chart contents, but the deck_block sentence is grammatically awkward and 'Free.' is ambiguous. Brevity is achieved at some cost to clarity.

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 read-only chart renderer with no output schema, the description should clarify the returned deck block and the parameter constraints. It covers the chart contents and deck integration but leaves title, limits, and broader output behavior undocumented.

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 only 25% because just the currency property has a schema description, so the description should compensate more. It explains the chart concepts behind ranges and markers such as an offer, but omits title, required/optional constraints, and array limits, and does not explain that midpoint is a computed display value rather than an input.

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?

Although written as a noun phrase, the description identifies the resource and its contents: valuation ranges side by side with low/high/midpoint, overall range, overlap, and markers, and the title supplies the verb 'Draw'. It distinguishes this chart renderer from valuation computation siblings like valuation_multiples or valuation_dcf, though it does not name them.

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 implies the tool is used to create a deck block for documents_create_deck and notes 'Free', giving some context for when to choose it. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it versus other valuation or charting tools.

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