get_viz_of_day

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned fields and the parallel pagination behavior for maxResults, but it omits details about default pagination behavior when maxResults is not specified, rate limits, or error cases. The added detail on bulk fetching is useful, but the gap on standard pagination and response shape keeps it at a 3.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds value: what it retrieves, what it returns, the key option, and the use case. There is no redundancy or filler, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers return fields, filtering, and bulk fetching, but it does not specify the overall response shape (list vs. object), default behavior when no filters are applied, or the relationship between page/limit and maxResults. These gaps make it incomplete for a tool with this complexity.

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% per context, but the description compensates by explaining maxResults (up to 500, parallel pagination) and filterMonth/filterYear with an example. However, page and limit are not described in the tool description, relying on their self-explanatory names and schema descriptions. The partial compensation is adequate but not complete, warranting a 3.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves Tableau Public's Visualization of the Day winners and distinguishes this from sibling tools by specifying the curated VOTD selection. It names the resource and the action ('Retrieves') and lists concrete return fields, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool ('useful for discovering high-quality visualizations and analyzing trends') and explains the VOTD concept, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This is a clear context without exclusions, so it fits a 4.

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