recommend_gallery_templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the whole burden, and it discloses almost nothing behavioral. It does not say whether the tool is read-only, whether it needs prior workbook/datasource context for compatibility checks, what drives the scoring/ranking, or that all 8 inputs are optional with defaults.

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 front-loaded sentence with no waste, which is good structure, but at 8 parameters and zero schema coverage it is undersized for the tool's complexity. It is concise without compensating for the missing detail.

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?

The output schema covers return values, so "scores and reasons" need not be re-explained. However, with no annotations, 8 undocumented parameters, and no usage guidance, the definition leaves the agent without enough to invoke the tool confidently or interpret the compatibility inputs.

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?

All 8 parameters (limit, kpi_count, chart_count, chart_types, filter_count, primary_intent, has_temporal_data, has_geographic_data) have 0% schema description coverage and none are explained in the description. The word "compatible" vaguely gestures at the matching criteria these params encode, but no parameter's meaning, units, or defaults are clarified.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Recommend") with a specific resource ("Gallery templates") and adds the distinctive qualifier "compatible" plus expected output ("scores and reasons"). That distinguishes it from the sibling list_gallery_templates, which merely enumerates, though the description never names that sibling.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing versus the adjacent list_gallery_templates or generate_gallery_layout tools. The agent must infer that this is for selecting rather than listing templates purely from the verb.

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