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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'requires authentication' and clarifies it returns the published version, not an editor draft. This gives the agent important context beyond the structured 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary use case, and the second sentence adds necessary exclusions and auth. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema and readOnly annotations, the description covers when to use, what it returns, the version distinction, and authentication. The only minor omission is naming the sibling tool explicitly, but the behavior is clear enough.

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 parameter description already specifies 'Opaque 32-character saved-chart id.' The description only repeats the notion of a saved-chart id without adding syntax, format, or additional semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('get'), a specific resource ('complete published Szum document' for a saved chart), and explicitly contrasts with 'newer editor draft', distinguishing it from sibling get_chart. The purpose is immediately clear and not a restatement of the title.

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 an explicit condition: 'when the user identifies a saved chart by id and needs its complete published Szum document for inspection or reuse.' It also states what it does not return, signaling when not to use it. The alternative is not named, but the published-vs-editor-draft distinction implies get_chart for drafts.

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