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

On top of the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint=false/destructiveHint=false annotations, it discloses output traits: generated value lists are summarized rather than enumerated, and validate_chart remains the authority. It doesn't describe output size or fetch cost precisely, but adds real context beyond the 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?

Four dense sentences with no filler, each carrying distinct information (when to use, what it returns, parameter effect, caveat about summarized values). The usage guidance leads, though the core purpose statement arrives in sentence two.

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 and read-only annotations, the description doesn't need to explain return values and covers the key caveats an agent needs. Complete enough to call correctly with no misleading gaps.

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 chart_type enum already documents allowed values, so the schema does the baseline work. The description still adds meaning by explaining the scoping effect and the size consequence of omitting it.

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 — returns the JSON Schema for the whole Szum document — and enumerates the sections covered (config, data, presentation, size, output). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_chart and get_examples.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('before authoring an unfamiliar field') and names the alternative behavior to avoid ('instead of probing validate_chart for errors'). It also states the conditional tradeoff for the chart_type parameter (scoped vs. much larger full-family output).

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