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

Beyond readOnlyHint/destructiveHint, it discloses permission requirements, that deleted or out-of-project dashboards return not found, and that the link is openable without signing in. It also spells out the three possible states and what each implies (never shared, revoked, expired), which annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose and the sibling distinction are front-loaded, and the return-state enumeration is dense but earned. It is a single long paragraph, however, and the state/return details could have been split for faster scanning by an agent.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining returns, and it does so completely: status values, shareUrl/confirmUrl, expiresAt, and the live refresh descriptor. Nothing needed to interpret the response 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with their source tools. The description adds domain meaning by noting that a dashboard outside the project yields not found, which clarifies the relational constraint between projectId and dashboardId. It does not add format or id-shape detail beyond the schema, so it sits just above baseline.

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?

It states a specific verb-and-resource pair ('Read whether a dashboard has a public link, and its state') and explicitly disclaims the mutation sibling: 'fastero_share_dashboard is the tool that asks for a link or refreshes one.' The agent can distinguish it from every other dashboard sibling, including fastero_get_dashboard, without opening a schema.

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?

It names both use cases ('find a dashboard's public address' or 'learn whether a link asked for is still awaiting confirmation') and names the alternative tool that performs the write. It also states the eligibility condition (Owner, Admin or Editor role) and the not-found condition, so the agent knows when this call is appropriate and when it will fail.

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