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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds the context of using it before making changes, which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose potential behavior like pagination or default agent handling beyond what the schema parameter description already covers.

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?

The description is two sentences, both directly relevant: the first states what it does, the second states its purpose. No filler or redundancy, and the key information (what and why) is front-loaded.

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 simple list tool with safe annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequate. However, it lacks explicit mention of the response format (though no output schema exists) and does not clarify if the list is scoped to the current company or if it requires company context beyond the required parameter. These are minor gaps.

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%, meaning both agent_id and companyId are documented in the schema itself. The description does not add additional semantics about parameters, so it relies on the schema. 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?

The description clearly states the verb (list) and resource (dashboard widgets) and specifies the scope (for a specific agent). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like remove_dashboard_widget and configure_dashboard, though it does not explicitly differentiate them.

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?

The description provides a usage context: 'Use to see what widgets are currently configured before making changes.' This implies when to use it (before modifications) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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