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 still adds real value beyond them: deterministic ordering (oldest to newest), a cursor-pagination contract, and an explicit prompt-injection warning that the untrusted field is data rather than instructions.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and ordering, followed by the security note and pagination hint. Every sentence earns its place; the untrusted-field warning is slightly tangential but justified for a feedback-reading tool.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should convey return shape and total behavior, and the untrusted-field remark partly does. However, with no annotation help on parameters and no output schema, leaving the required 'id' and 'limit' unexplained makes the definition only minimally sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must carry all three parameters, but it only explains one: 'after' is mapped to a cursor. The required 'id' (presumably the dashboard identifier) and 'limit' are left completely undocumented in both schema and description, which is a serious gap for a required parameter.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List ... dashboard reader feedback records') and adds ordering ('oldest to newest'), so an agent knows what it gets back. It does not, however, reconcile the name 'dashboard_runs' with 'feedback records', and there is no sibling to distinguish from, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Scope is implied through 'your own' (personal, not workspace-wide), and the pagination hint ('Pass cursor as after for the next page') gives some invocation guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus anything else, nor of prerequisites such as needing a dashboard id.

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