get_visual_definition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description needn't re-establish safety. It adds real value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the returned definition (field mappings, aggregations, formatting, chart configuration) and its reuse in add_visual. Auth requirements and failure modes are still unmentioned.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by what the definition contains and the copy workflow. No sentence is filler.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description still adds useful summary of the definition's contents plus the add_visual reuse pattern. Nothing needed to call this tool correctly is missing.

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?

Both parameters are documented in the schema at 100% coverage, including what visual_id and analysis_id mean, so the description carries little additional burden. It adds no format, prefix, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, making the 3 baseline correct.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get the full raw definition of a specific visual') and names the scope ('full raw definition'), which cleanly separates it from list_visuals (enumeration) and get_analysis_raw (different resource). An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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 a clear use case ('inspect a visual's complete configuration') and a downstream workflow: the result can be modified and passed to add_visual to create a copy. This implicitly routes the agent away from list_visuals and toward the copy workflow, but no explicit when-not condition is stated.

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