Get DataLens editor chart

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the returned object (kind + code tabs), which is real value, but says nothing about auth requirements, the branch/rev read semantics, or what happens when workbook_id is omitted.

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 tight sentence with zero waste and the core output content front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for a 7-parameter tool, but nothing in it is redundant.

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 some of the return-value burden and does gesture at the payload (kind and code tabs), but does not enumerate the optional enrichment fields the include_* flags add or the revision/branch semantics of the response. Adequate but leaves visible gaps for a 7-param 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters already carry precise documentation, including the saved/published branch rule and the rev_id-or-branch exclusivity. The description adds essentially no parameter-level meaning beyond “its kind”, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Identifies a specific resource (one chart) and its provenance (“written in the editor”), and tells the agent the payload is the chart kind (entry.type) plus its code tabs. It implicitly separates this from the sibling wizard/QL chart getters, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. The agent must infer from the name that this reads editor-type charts rather than wizard or QL charts, with no explicit statement of prerequisites.

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