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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact beyond the schema: the 20-credit Tier 2 cost, which lets an agent budget calls. Output content (layout coordinates) is also noted, though the return shape itself is left to the output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence captures purpose and differentiator, followed by compact group and cost tags. Every line earns its place with no redundancy.

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 the return shape is not required, and the rich input schema covers the natal/mode parameters. What remains slightly thin is the relationship to the rendering tools and the non-layout sibling, but for a layout-variant tool this is largely 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%, with the body, fields, and precision parameters thoroughly documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 for a fully-covered schema 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?

States a specific verb (Return) and resource (disposition chains) plus the distinguishing feature: computed x/y layout coordinates for graph visualization. This implicitly separates it from the sibling astroway_dignities_disposition_chains, though it never names that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the contrast.

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?

The phrase 'for graph visualization' hints at the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to the non-layout sibling. The agent has no guidance on why it would pick this variant over astroway_dignities_disposition_chains.

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