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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: no account is required, the link expires after seven days, and the note is only for the agent's reply. The destructiveHint annotation is not reflected in the text, but nothing in the description directly contradicts 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds either a workflow, timing, or retention detail. No filler or repetition.

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 publish tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action, the two invocation paths, the output instruction (return the URL as a link with a one-line caption), and the auth/expiry constraints. Nothing essential is missing.

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 description names the main build parameters (symbol, timeframe, indicators, levels) and explains their role in the one-call workflow, supplementing the schema. It does not discuss exchange or market, but those are enum-constrained and low-risk.

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 specific action and deliverable: 'Publish the chart and get a URL the person can open in Basis.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling chart tools that mutate chart state or return images, even though no sibling is named.

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 gives explicit timing ('Call it at the end of any answer about a market') and two workflows ('build first with the chart tools, or pass symbol, timeframe, indicators and levels here'). It does not state exclusions or when a sibling like chart_image would be preferred.

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