plot_polar_chart

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it reads directly from a table and should not be preceded by base_readQuery, providing extra behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is a single focused paragraph with clear sections for parameters and returns. Every sentence serves a purpose, no fluff, and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, its parameters, and when to use it. Missing details about the returned dict format, but overall sufficient for agent selection and 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 coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. The description not only lists parameters but also explains their roles (table_name for table, labels for category, column for numeric value), adding meaning beyond the schema's attribute descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states it 'Generate a polar area chart' from a Teradata table, specifying the resource and verb. It distinguishes from sibling plot_pie_chart, and explicitly names the three parameters.

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?

Explicit usage instructions: 'Use when the user explicitly asks for a polar chart or polar area chart' and advises against using base_readQuery first. Directs standard pie breakdowns to plot_pie_chart.

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