Show the radar

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the lower bar applies. The description still adds real value beyond them by disclosing host-dependent output: interactive hosts get a selectable view, non-interactive hosts get the same selection as text, and the view invites follow-up questions about a chosen entry.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and deliverable, then the filtering/highlighting options, then the degradation behavior. No sentence is filler; the host-fallback line in particular earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining both what the user sees (interactive radar) and what the agent gets on non-interactive hosts (text selection). Minor gaps remain — nothing about behavior when highlight IDs are unknown, or how the view is scoped within a conversation — but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents all six parameters, including the sector, dimension, and highlight semantics. The description only restates the dimension/label filtering and highlighting at a high level, adding no format or interaction detail beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Show the interactive radar in the conversation" gives a specific verb (show/render) plus resource, and the modifiers (filter by dimension or label, highlight entries) tell an agent exactly what the tool produces. The mention of "entries a search or plan check returned" implicitly ties it to search_radar and check_plan, though no sibling is named explicitly as an alternative.

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?

The description supplies a concrete usage pattern: render the radar, optionally scoped to a dimension/label, or highlight a result set from a search or plan check. That is enough for an agent to decide between rendering and the retrieval siblings (get_entry, search_radar). It stops short of explicit exclusions, e.g. when a plain list of entries is preferable to a visualization.

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