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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, but the description usefully adds that a read call can trigger infographic generation as a side effect when the flag is set — context the annotations would otherwise make surprising. It does not disclose whether that generation is synchronous, how long it takes, or what happens if the diagram is also missing, so it falls short of full behavioral disclosure.

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, no waste, output types front-loaded and the actionable flag guidance placed second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 no-output-schema read tool with four flat parameters, the description covers the return shape (diagram + infographic URL) and the one non-obvious flag. Minor gaps remain around flag defaults and the cost/latency of triggering generation, but nothing essential for a correct call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate. It does explain the semantics of generateInfographicIfMissing and names the two asset kinds that map to includeDiagram and includeInfographic, but revisionId and the exact effect of the include flags (skip vs. error when absent) are only hinted at.

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 and resource ('Returns strategy visual assets for a revision') and enumerates the concrete payloads: Mermaid diagram code/image and infographic image URL. It implicitly separates itself from get_backtest_visuals by scoping to a strategy revision, but never names that sibling or states the distinguishing condition explicitly.

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 second sentence gives actionable guidance for one flag ('Use generateInfographicIfMissing=true to trigger infographic generation when missing'), which is genuinely useful. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus get_backtest_visuals, nor when to leave the include flags on defaults, so usage is only partially implied.

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