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. The description adds only the visibility scoping notion — useful context but thin, and there is no mention of pagination or ordering behavior for what is presumably a multi-item listing.

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?

Single short sentence with no filler, but the compression costs clarity — "by pinned, owned, shared and workspace" is a noun pile that reads more like an undocumented argument list than a description. Front-loaded verb+resource is good; the trailing clause needs unpacking.

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?

For a listing tool with no output schema and an undocumented return structure, the description should at minimum say what the caller gets back and mention the search capability that is the tool's only input. Neither is present, leaving the most consequential detail — how results are grouped or filtered — to guesswork.

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 single optional parameter ("search", title search, max 100 chars) is fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. However, the description never mentions that title search is supported, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema and the quoted categories don't correspond to any actual 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("List visible dashboards") and hints at scope ("visible"), but the trailing "by pinned, owned, shared and workspace" is ambiguous — it is unclear whether those are result groupings, filters the caller can supply, or sections of the response, and none appear in the schema. An agent can identify the resource but not precisely what shape of listing it gets.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the sibling report_list_templates (listing dashboards vs templates) or report_get_dashboard (fetching a single dashboard's details). The "visible" qualifier implies a permission scope but never states the alternative or exclusion.

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