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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the result ordering (Overview first, then custom dashboards) and the fields each entry carries, which the agent could not know from the schema. It stops short of covering pagination or whether tile details are included.

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 sentence with no waste, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the useful ordering and field details. Nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential shape of the result (ordered, with name/position/tile count). It could be slightly more complete by noting whether tile contents are included or pointing to get_dashboard for detail, but nothing critical 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter noise and instead spends its words on return-shape information.

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?

Uses a specific verb (List) plus resource (dashboards) and goes further by stating the ordering and the fields returned for each entry (name, position, tile count). This makes it clearly distinct from get_dashboard, create_dashboard, and evaluate_dashboard in the sibling list.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'list all dashboards' framing suggests this is the entry point before calling get_dashboard or update_dashboard, but the description never states when to prefer this over get_dashboard or list_dashboard_tile_types, nor any preconditions. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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