Show Decomposition

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the redundancy of 'Read-only' is low value; however the description adds real context beyond structured data: 'Returns the same useful JSON on clients without visual support', 'attribution convention is displayed where available', and the prediction-window constraint. These disclose return behavior and data-scope limits not captured by annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and compact overall. The clipped sentence fragments ('Read-only.', 'Never requests prediction-window data.') are terse but each carries distinct information, so little is wasted.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values needn't be explained, and behavioral context is reasonably covered. The gap is the undocumented required model_hash, plus no framing of how the tool relates to its many visualization siblings.

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% and the sole required parameter, model_hash, is never mentioned in the description. Unlike a zero-parameter tool, the description leaves the required identifier's meaning entirely undocumented in both structured and unstructured fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Show served contribution time series in KPI units in a native chart.' An agent can understand the operation, though the description never contrasts it with closely-named siblings such as show_response_curves or show_optimizer_allocation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives. 'Never requests prediction-window data' hints at a boundary but does not tell the agent when to prefer this tool over its many show_* siblings.

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