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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context: referenced definitions are included, generated value lists are summarized rather than enumerated, and validate_chart remains the authority. These details help an agent understand the tool’s limits and output character.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it begins with when to use the tool, then describes what it returns, then explains the chart_type tradeoff and output limitation. Every sentence contributes useful selection or behavior information.

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?

Given the read-only annotations, complete single-parameter schema, and existing output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly. It also flags the summarized value lists and directs validation errors to validate_chart.

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%, so the basic parameter meaning is already documented. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining that passing chart_type keeps only that family’s config variants, while omitting it returns every family and produces a much larger result.

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 resource and result: the JSON Schema for the whole Szum document, explicitly covering config, data, presentation, size, and output. It distinguishes the tool from validate_chart by positioning this as schema retrieval rather than validation.

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?

It gives explicit usage guidance: use this before authoring an unfamiliar field instead of probing validate_chart for errors. It also explains when to pass chart_type and the consequence of omitting it, leaving little ambiguity about when to choose this tool.

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