Get DataLens wizard chart

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine non-annotation behavior: ``isFavorite`` and ``permissions`` are returned only when explicitly requested, and ``entry.data`` is the round-trippable payload for update. It does not note error/empty-revision behavior, keeping it below 5.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the return shape leads and the sibling references follow. The backtick-heavy telegraphic style is dense but every clause carries information.

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 does the work of explaining what comes back (datasets read, what the chart shows, entry.data, and conditionally favorite/permissions). That covers the key retrieval contract for a 7-param get tool; only revision/branch read semantics and error cases are left to the 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%, so the schema already documents branch, rev_id, include_links, include_favorite and include_permissions. The description's mention that favorite/permissions 'come only when asked for' largely restates the schema's 'Also say whether...' wording rather than adding new semantics, 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?

The description conveys a specific resource and scope: 'One chart built in the wizard: the datasets it reads and what it shows.' It distinguishes the wizard chart from the editor/QL siblings implicitly via the 'built in the wizard' framing, but the read verb itself is only carried by the title, not the description text.

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?

It gives concrete routing context: '``entry.data`` is what ``charts_wizard_update`` takes back' implies read-before-update, and '``entries_list`` with the scope ``widget`` finds charts' names the alternative for discovery. No explicit when-not or exclusion, so it stops short of a 5.

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