Lollipop Chart

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. Description adds context about supporting optional target markers for benchmarking, which is a behavioral feature beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise sentences that cover purpose, features, and comparison. No unnecessary words. Front-loads the key 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 tool's simplicity (render chart with parameters well-documented in schema), description is largely sufficient. Could mention output format (visual chart) but not necessary. Annotations cover behavioral aspects.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions, so baseline is 3. Description mentions target markers and benchmark, but these are already captured in the schema. No additional meaning added beyond what schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states it renders a lollipop chart for comparing segments, with horizontal lines and dots. Includes the question 'How do segments compare?' and distinguishes from bar charts, which helps differentiate it from sibling chart tools.

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 it's for ranked data and a clean alternative to bar charts, implying when to use it. However, does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or name specific alternatives beyond bar charts.

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