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

The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the read-only annotations by explaining that results include each chart type's slug, what it answers, and its install command. It does not describe ranking or search behavior, but with readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already covering the safety profile, this is reasonably transparent.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and examples, followed by the return shape. There is no redundant text and every sentence contributes useful 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 search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essential return fields and the query style. It leaves out ranking or result-ordering details, which are minor but would help an agent interpret results.

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 100%, so the schema already documents query, limit, freeOnly, and question. The description reinforces the plain-language intent of query with examples but adds little semantic detail for the other filters, so the baseline 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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Find the Chartory chart types" and ties it to questions about the user's data. It is clear enough to distinguish search_charts from siblings that fetch code, specs, or tokens, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 clearly indicates the usage context: turning a plain-language question about the user's data into chart-type recommendations, with two concrete examples. It does not state when not to use it or explicitly route to get_chart_spec/get_chart_code, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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