Get App Data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context that this re-executes another tool call (implying repeat cost/latency) and is internal-only, but it never states whether that re-run has side effects, costs quota, or fails when the upstream tool errors.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the internal/app-facing scope is stated up front. It is efficient, though the mechanism clause is tacked on grammatically and could have been front-loaded more clearly.

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 and a nested free-form `arguments` object, the description carries the burden of saying what comes back and how `arguments` must match the original call. It says nothing about the return payload or failure behavior when the upstream tool is unavailable, leaving real gaps for a structured, nested-parameter tool.

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%, so the parameters are fully documented in structured form and the baseline is 3. The description does add a little meaning beyond the schema by tying the tool to the data-viz re-run path, clarifying why `tool` and `arguments` exist as a replayed call, which lifts it slightly above baseline.

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 names a mechanism ('running tomtom-data-viz again') and a goal ('get data missing from the result'), so the verb/resource pair is present. But 'data missing from the result' is fuzzy about what is actually retrieved, and the stated mechanism (data-viz) sits oddly beside the `tool` parameter, which is described as 'the tool whose result the app draws' — an agent cannot tell precisely which upstream tool gets re-run.

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?

'Internal tool for the data-viz app' implicitly restricts caller and context, and 'data missing from the result' hints at the trigger. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives, though the sibling set contains no near-equivalent, so the implied scope does most of the work.

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