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

Annotations flag destructive/openWorld but say nothing about the mechanics; the description supplies them: the link stays unpublished until a signed-in Owner/Admin/Editor confirms at confirmUrl, the request expires in 7 days, confirming publishes a live-query snapshot, refreshes are immediate with no re-confirmation, failed widget queries fall back to cached rows, and refresh settings interact with fastero_set_dashboard_refresh.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the sibling distinction, and every sentence carries substantive behavior. It is dense to the point of run-on in the confirmation paragraph, which costs readability, but little is filler.

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, and the description fully covers returns: status 'awaiting_confirmation' with confirmUrl and expiresAt, or 'published' with shareUrl (including the 'none' edge case), plus the 'live' field. Combined with the confirmation and refresh model, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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% and both parameters already document their source (fastero_list_projects, fastero_list_dashboards), so the description adds nothing extra about them. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 plus the dual mode: 'Ask for a dashboard's public link, or refresh one already published.' It also draws the boundary against fastero_invite_to_project and implicitly against fastero_get_dashboard_share_link, so an agent can separate it from siblings without reading schemas.

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: use fastero_invite_to_project for signed-in sharing, use this for public links, and it clarifies that calling again while a request is pending changes nothing. It also names the prerequisite role (Editor or above) and the 409 case for empty dashboards.

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