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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the result set is the caller's own plus shared dashboards, archived is defined as 'retired and not being served', and shared entries expose a `role` of view or edit. It stops short of noting ordering, result-size limits, or pagination, which is the only remaining gap for a list tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the scope and returned attributes, followed by the call-ordering advice. The parenthetical defining 'archived' is the only aside and it removes ambiguity rather than padding; no sentence is redundant with the annotations or schema.

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 zero parameters, no output schema and simple read-only annotations, the description carries the full explanatory burden and does so: it names the result set, the fields returned, the meaning of archived and role, and when to call it relative to siblings. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the schema imposes nothing to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly spends no words on inputs and instead documents the conceptual fields in the response.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list the dashboards) and immediately scopes it to 'you own and those shared with you', then enumerates what each entry carries: name, address, visibility, archived status, version count, last-changed time. This is distinguishable at a glance from dashboard_get (single dashboard) or dashboard_share_list (sharing only).

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?

Gives an explicit sequencing rule: call this before dashboard_promote or dashboard_get, with the rationale that you should use a dashboard's real name rather than guessing. That names the alternatives and the condition that selects this tool, leaving nothing to inference.

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