Get DataLens QL chart

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine structural detail that the response is flat with no `entry` wrapper, unlike wizard charts, which helps the agent interpret output, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or error behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the one differentiating fact. Every word earns its place, though the fragmentary phrasing ("comes flat") is slightly more cryptic than it needs to be.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description partially compensates by noting the flat shape with no `entry` wrapper. However, for a 7-parameter read tool it does not describe the branch/rev_id read semantics or what the returned chart contains, leaving some gaps for an agent working without an output schema.

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% (branch, rev_id, chart_id, workbook_id, include_* flags are all documented in the schema), so the schema carries semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 the resource ("One QL chart") and explicitly distinguishes it from the wizard chart variant, which is a real sibling (datalens_charts_wizard_get). The retrieval verb is only implied by the tool name rather than stated in the description, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"One QL chart" implies fetching a single chart, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (chart_id, workbook_id), and no named alternative such as datalens_charts_wizard_get or datalens_charts_editor_get that would tell an agent which chart-get to pick.

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