Get Visualization Data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds the behavioral nuance that the data is 'cached', which indicates the tool does not perform fresh computations and may return stale data. This is valuable context beyond the 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It conveys the tool's purpose, audience, and required input in under 15 words. Perfectly sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 is simple (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects) and the description, combined with annotations and schema, covers the essentials. The only omission is an explicit description of the return format, but given it is a retrieval tool, the agent can reasonably infer the response contains the visualization data. This is acceptable for an internal 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?

The input schema already provides a clear description for the sole parameter (viz_id: 'Unique visualization ID from the tool response _meta'), giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific information, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (retrieve), the resource (cached visualization data), and the key identifier (viz_id). It explicitly marks the tool as internal, and none of the sibling tools overlap in function (geocoding, routing, etc.), so it is unambiguous.

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 that this tool is for internal apps and for retrieving cached visualization data. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the absence of any sibling with similar functionality makes the usage scope self-evident. It also implies it should be used only when a viz_id is available from a prior tool response.

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