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

Annotations already establish safe-read semantics (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds non-obvious output behavior: amounts are bare numbers with no currency, requiring a separate settings call. That is meaningful context beyond the annotations, though nothing is said about missing/orphaned IDs.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by a caveat that changes how the result must be reported. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by flagging the currency pitfall and its remedy. For a single-parameter read with full annotation coverage, this is close to complete; a note on behavior for an unknown ID would round it out.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it fully at 100% coverage (UUID format with regex). The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance for the id beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a single dashboard snapshot by ID'), which is unambiguous about the operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close sibling get_dashboard_summary or from list_dashboard_snapshots, leaving the agent to infer the singular-vs-aggregate distinction.

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 supplies a genuine workflow instruction — call get_organization_settings for currency_code before stating an amount — which is real 'when' guidance. It stops short of routing between this tool, get_dashboard_summary, and list_dashboard_snapshots, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied by 'by ID'.

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