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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: each result includes urls.png previews, chart type/title, required columns, and a human-facing gallery link. It also instructs the agent to 'show a few to your human', which is a useful interaction cue beyond annotations.

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?

Every sentence carries useful information, but the phrasing is awkward and somewhat rambling—e.g., 'Published charts their owners offered' and 'urls.png' without clear context. The content could be tightened without losing meaning, so it's not a model of concise structure.

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 simple read-only list with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what items contain, how to use the returned ids with create_asset, and the fallback that any chart id works. Missing details like pagination or ordering are minor at this complexity level.

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?

The single optional `type` parameter is fully described in the schema ('Only this asset type, e.g. "bar"'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level information, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('Published charts their owners offered as starting points') and the tool's purpose (start a new chart from one). It frames list_templates as a distinct template subset relative to the sibling list_assets, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling or contrast them.

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 provides concrete downstream guidance: 'Then create_asset with template: <id> and your data — the whole design comes along.' It also notes that any chart id works as a template, signaling that this tool is not strictly required if you already have a chart id. No explicit when-not versus list_assets is given, but the use case is well implied.

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