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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope ('published') and enumerates returned metadata fields, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result-size limits beyond what the schema already documents.

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 sentences with zero filler; the purpose and scope are front-loaded and the routing hint follows immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so explaining return values is not strictly required, and the description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It could go slightly further on pagination (cursor vs. offset interplay), but that gap is minor since the schema covers it.

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%, with limit, query, cursor, and offset all documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'by topic' hints at the query parameter but adds no syntax, format, or matching semantics beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Find) plus resource (charts) with a clear scope: published, Black Friday Brazil, by topic. It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling get_chart_data by assigning that tool the value-retrieval role.

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?

Names the alternative (get_chart_data) and the condition that selects it ('to retrieve the values'), giving the agent a clear routing decision. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use this tool (e.g., when you already have a chart ID), so it is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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