select_visuals_for_kpis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It reveals that it uses a specific recommender engine automatically, implying no manual visual selection. However, it doesn't disclose side effects or return format; output schema likely covers that. It is not contradictory.

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 very short (two sentences) and gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded with the main output. It is efficient, though it lacks depth for a tool with no schema descriptions.

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 it has 4 parameters with zero schema documentation and no annotations, a two-sentence description is insufficient. With an output schema existing, the return structure is covered, but the parameters' semantics are unclear. For a tool that selects visuals, more context on audience and result limiting is needed.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. The description only mentions 'KPI in the JSON list' (relating to kpis_json) but doesn't clarify the 'audience', 'inspector', or 'max_results' meaning. No parameter details are given beyond names.

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 states a clear purpose: for each KPI, return primary visual and alternatives. It mentions the underlying 'viz/visual_suggester' logic, which adds context. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools but the KPI context is specific enough.

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?

Description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not mention preconditions (like having KPI data) or alternatives. The single sentence does not provide context for selection; it simply explains functionality.

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