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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the validation contract: on errors the result lists each one with the field path and no link is returned; ignored keys surface as warnings; the reader of the resulting link needs no account. Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so this added failure/warning semantics is genuine extra value.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then the format requirement, then error/warning behavior, then schema references. Four dense sentences with little waste, though the final schema-URL sentence is long and could be trimmed.

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?

With an output schema present, return structure needn't be explained, yet the description still covers the two outcomes that matter (error list with paths, or a link) plus warnings. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly or recover from a failure 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already names the single 'document' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning by pointing to get_plot_format for the expected shape and to the draft-07 schema URLs, including a strict variant that refuses keys this tool only warns about — information that changes what the agent should pass.

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: validates a Graph Paper plot document and returns a link that opens it as an editable draft. This is clearly distinguishable from get_plot_format (which supplies the format) and list_examples (which supplies samples), so an agent can pick it 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?

Gives a clear precondition (the document must be given as a JSON object in the format of get_plot_format) and a clear retry loop (if errors are returned, fix them and call the tool again). It does not state when NOT to use it or contrast the strict-schema path as a distinct workflow, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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