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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the valuable detail that the payload is SVG markup rather than a URL or binary blob, but says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown figure id or how large drawings are returned.

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 short sentence with no redundant wording. The slightly awkward genitive phrasing ("of a question or of a theory section") costs a little crispness but nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and a read-only annotation, the definition is adequate but thin. With no output schema, it should say more about what the SVG return looks like or how missing figures are signalled.

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%, including a documented enum for lang and two concrete id formats for figure, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no format or default information beyond it, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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 drawing of a question or of a theory section as SVG markup" names the resource (a drawing) and the two source types (question, theory section) plus the output format. An agent can distinguish it from get_questions/get_theory, which return text content, without opening the schema.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The agent must infer that this tool is for retrieving images while the sibling text tools are for reading content, and nothing states prerequisites such as needing a valid figure id first.

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