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

Annotations only indicate it is not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent. The description adds meaningful context: the requirement for AUTARIO_API_KEY and the verification gate. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying auth needs and operational constraints, though it does not describe the exact side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites or creates a new chart) or the response format.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and the alternative. Every clause earns its place: the 'unless' clause defines scope, and the API key and verification-gate note add crucial operational constraints without fluff.

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?

The description covers the purpose, the key alternative, and important constraints. It does not describe the return value or explicit side effects, but for a publishing tool with no output schema, the essential information for an agent to decide and invoke is present. The schema handles parameter details, so this is adequately complete.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in detail. The description references the Plotly spec structure but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter burden and the description adds little extra.

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 opens with a clear verb-resource pair ('Publish a chart') and a specific method (freeform Plotly spec). It immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling create_chart_from_spec, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does and how it differs from the nearest alternative.

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?

Explicitly names the preferred alternative ('Use create_chart_from_spec instead') and lists the exact conditions where this tool is appropriate (custom shapes, multi-axis layouts, animation frames). It also states the API key requirement and notes that brand attribution and insight verification gates apply, giving clear selection criteria.

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