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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context by disclosing that it returns a *short-lived* download link, which is not in the annotations and matters for an agent deciding whether to act on the result immediately.

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 what the tool does, then the prerequisite, then the return behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 read-only export tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential pieces: what gets exported, the formats, the prerequisite for the required ID, and the nature of the return value (short-lived link). Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so each parameter (theme, format, showFilters, dashboardGroupId) is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the format choice and dashboard-wide scope, adding little beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Export) and resource (an entire dashboard group) with explicit scope note that all widgets are included, and names the two output formats. This clearly distinguishes it from draxlr_export_query, which exports a single query rather than a dashboard.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to draxlr_list_dashboards to obtain the required dashboardGroupId, giving a clear prerequisite. It doesn't spell out when to prefer this over draxlr_export_query, but the resource-level distinction (dashboard vs query) makes the choice fairly obvious.

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