read_chart

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: that counts reflect collected records, that unlogged=0 does not prove complete history, that data_complete reports only source health, and a prompt-injection warning that returned text is data, not instructions. Only 'Read-only' redundantly restates the annotation.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the first sentence is a dense run-on list of renamed fields that must be decoded via parentheticals, and the caveats and security warning are packed into one paragraph. It is information-rich yet structurally hard to scan.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so, listing the exposed fields plus completeness caveats and a security note. It is close to complete for a single-parameter read tool.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the 'project' argument and its source (take_fix). The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond that, matching the baseline 3 for fully-covered schemas.

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+resource ('Read one voyage (project)') and enumerates the returned fields, mapping each metaphor to its real term in parentheses (voyage=project, navigator=tool, watches=sessions). It is identifiable, though the heavy in-house vocabulary adds decoding cost and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like status or log_watch.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not guidance relative to take_fix, status, or log_watch. The only routing hint ('Exact project name, as listed by take_fix') lives in the schema, not the description, so the agent gets no contextual signal about when this tool is the right pick.

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