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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value beyond that with permission scoping and by explaining how the result distinguishes the live version from an unpublished draft. It stops short of describing ordering (newest first?) or whether long histories are truncated, which matters for a history-listing 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, zero filler: the returned fields come first, the usage routing second. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the title 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 no output schema, the description does the work of listing the returned fields and flagging live vs draft, which is the key information an agent needs to act on the result. Only minor gaps remain: no mention of result ordering, history size limits, or behavior when the dashboard is not found or not editable.

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 is a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already says it is the dashboard name sourced from dashboard_list, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only the access qualifier (owned or shared-for-edit) and no new naming or lookup semantics.

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 the specific resource (a dashboard's version history) and enumerates exactly what each entry carries: version number, message, publish time and origin, live status, and unpublished-draft status. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as dashboard_get and dashboard_rollback, which it names explicitly.

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 gives concrete when-to-use guidance: call it before dashboard_rollback or dashboard_promote_version, and pair it with dashboard_get to read an earlier spec. The access precondition (you own the dashboard or it is shared with you to edit) is also stated, so the agent knows when the call is even valid.

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