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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description still adds real context beyond them: newest-first ordering, that each entry carries who published it, from where, and what changed, plus an explicit authentication requirement. Minor gap: no mention of pagination limits despite cursor/limit params.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the use case before the return-shape note, with no repetition of the title or schema. Every clause carries information the agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 read-only list tool with a full output schema and 100%-documented params, the description covers the missing pieces: when to choose it, what the results contain, ordering, and auth. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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 id format, limit bounds, cursor semantics, and the named filter are all fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies rather than more.

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 (list a saved chart's versions) and immediately scopes it to 'earlier publications,' which separates it from get_chart, get_chart_document, and list_charts. The two named sibling references make the boundary unambiguous.

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 gives the three triggering intents: browse past publications, find one to read with get_chart_document, or pick one to restore with restore_chart_version. This routes the agent to the correct downstream tool rather than leaving it to inference.

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