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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation says the tool has no side effects, but the description says setting generateInfographicIfMissing=true triggers infographic generation, which is a write-like side effect; this is an annotation contradiction. Aside from that conflict, the description adds little behavior beyond this: it does not say whether generation is slow or costly, whether the defaults of true for includeDiagram and includeInfographic fill the response with something large, or what happens when a revision has no visuals.

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 return payload and followed by the one operational knob. Nothing is padded and nothing is buried.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully spells out the return shape (diagram code or image, infographic URL), which the agent would otherwise not know. It falls short only on the optional toggles and the side-effect conditions of the generation flag.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it explains only generateInfographicIfMissing. includeDiagram and includeInfographic are left as bare booleans with defaults that the schema shows but does not explain, though their names are largely self-evident.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns strategy visual assets for a revision, naming both artifacts (Mermaid diagram code/image and infographic image URL). This makes it clearly distinct from get_backtest_visuals, although the description never actually names that sibling.

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 description gives one concrete usage instruction: set generateInfographicIfMissing=true to trigger generation when the infographic is missing. That is useful. However, it does not say when to call this tool instead of get_strategy, get_backtest_visuals, or get_backtest_artifact, so the agent must infer the choice from the name.

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