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

The description discloses important non-obvious behavior beyond what annotations provide: each widget is cloned with a fresh ID, widgets are stacked below existing content, and widgets with unavailable datasource/goal/calculated metric connections degrade to demo data instead of erroring. This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail an agent needs before invoking the tool.

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 with no filler: it front-loads the core operation, then details the two most consequential behaviors (fresh IDs/stacking and demo-data fallback). Every sentence and clause earns its place.

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 create-like operation with four required parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the non-obvious runtime behavior, and the return value is handled by the output schema, so nothing essential 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%, and each parameter already has a clear description with a source method to obtain it (e.g., 'from list_pages', 'from list_assets'). The tool description adds no extra parameter-level semantics, but the schema fully carries that burden, so the baseline score of 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 identifies the action ('Instantiate an asset's widgets'), the resource ('onto a report page'), and the key side effects that characterize this specific operation: cloning widgets with fresh IDs and stacking them below existing widgets. It is distinguishable from the many single-widget add_* tools because it operates on an entire saved asset/section.

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 tool's use case is clear from the title and first sentence: adding a saved asset's widgets to a report page. It does not explicitly name individual add_*_widget tools as alternatives or state when to prefer this over adding widgets one by one, so it stops just short of full usage guidance.

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