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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: sharing can be paused, and a paused dashboard retains its share list while blocking access for everyone on it. It does not discuss pagination or result size, which is the only notable gap for a list-style 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?

The identity and scope come first, then the returned fields, then the paused caveat, then the pointer to dashboard_unshare and the parameter note. The middle clause is a long run-on enumeration, but every element carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so thoroughly: enumerated principals, permission level, acceptance state, aggregate audience, and paused status. For a single-parameter read tool this covers everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents that `dashboard` accepts a name from dashboard_list or a /d/owner/slug path. The closing sentence of the description repeats that almost verbatim, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured field. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific scoping statement ('Who a dashboard you own, or can edit, is shared with') and enumerates exactly what the result contains: people by email, pending email invitations, groups, organizations, view/edit permission level, and acceptance status. This is clearly a read of a share list, distinct from the sibling write tools dashboard_share and dashboard_unshare.

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?

It states the access precondition (you must own or be able to edit the dashboard) and explicitly routes removal actions to dashboard_unshare. It does not contrast with dashboard_share or dashboard_get, but the read-vs-mutate split is implied strongly enough that an agent has clear context.

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