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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable non-schema context by saying what comes back (widget name, display type, query) plus a viewable `url` — useful precisely because there is no output schema.

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 tight sentences: the action and lookup key come first, the example use case second, and the return summary last. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully summarizes the return payload and the url, and annotations handle the safety semantics. It could still mention failure behavior for a nonexistent dashboard id or whether widget queries are fully expanded.

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 both ids are already documented as the :databaseId and :dashboardGroupId link segments. The description only restates this framing, adding no extra syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a dashboard's widgets by its id'), which is clearly a single-dashboard fetch rather than a list. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with (e.g., draxlr_list_dashboards vs. draxlr_export_dashboard), so differentiation is only implicit.

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?

Gives a concrete use case — resolving a dashboard link of the form /dashboard/:databaseId/:dashboardGroupId — which tells the agent exactly when this tool fits. It stops short of stating exclusions or naming alternatives for the list/export variants.

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