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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description's only added behavioral fact is that the response includes the caller's rights alongside blocks, which is useful but thin, and it says nothing about error behavior for unknown or unauthorized dashboard 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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler or repetition. It is arguably over-compressed to the point of under-specification, which keeps it just below a 5.

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?

The tool is structurally simple (one required param, no nesting) and annotations fully cover safety, but there is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value explanation — and 'blocks and your rights' only sketches the response shape without describing block structure or what 'rights' contains.

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 required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'dashboardId' as a UUID. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 for a fully-covered one-param schema.

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 verb 'Read' and resource 'a dashboard's blocks' are stated, plus an unusual secondary payload ('your rights'). It is not a tautology, but 'your rights' is ambiguous phrasing and the description never distinguishes this from siblings like report_list_dashboards or report_get_sharing.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as report_list_dashboards (to find a dashboard) or report_get_sharing (to inspect permissions). The agent must infer the invocation context from the name alone.

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