plot_polar_chart

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds value by specifying that the tool reads directly from a Teradata table and instructs not to use base_readQuery first, implying the tool handles the query internally. No contradictions with 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: two sentences for the main purpose and usage, followed by a clear list of three parameters with their types and roles. No extraneous 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?

The tool lacks an output schema, and the description only states the return type as 'dict' without explaining what the dictionary contains (e.g., chart data, configuration, or a generated chart object). For a visualization tool, this is a significant gap, though the input side is well-covered.

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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter descriptions in the tool description are identical to those in the input schema. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; however, the main description provides context for each parameter's role in generating a polar chart, making it baseline adequate.

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?

Clearly states the tool generates a polar area chart from a Teradata table, specifying the required parameters (table_name, labels, column). Distinguishes from sibling tool plot_pie_chart, fulfilling the specific verb+resource criterion.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (when user asks for polar chart or polar area chart) and when not to (do not use base_readQuery first). Provides clear alternative (use plot_pie_chart for standard pie-style breakdowns).

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