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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive/non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: the response carries grid_cols and size_bounds, and the crucial nuance that size_bounds are keyed by widget TYPE (kpi/chart/widget) rather than by individual catalog_id. It stops short of describing pagination or catalog size, keeping it at a 4.

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 purpose and the key routing fact (no preset chart), and every sentence carries information. The second paragraph is dense with inline JSON fragments and backticked field names, which slows reading slightly, but nothing 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, so the description has to carry the return contract itself — and it does: grid_cols, size_bounds, and the catalog_id/id semantics of entries. Combined with the explicit chart alternative, an agent has everything needed to call this and consume the result correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does add meaning to the surrounding call contract (catalog_id values feed a {"kind": "preset", "catalog_id": ...} spec), but there are no input parameters for it to clarify.

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 precise verb+resource (list built-in 'preset' dashboard widgets) and immediately scopes it to the two tools that consume the result (create_dashboard/set_dashboard_widgets). It also names what the catalog does NOT contain (no preset chart), which lets an agent distinguish it from any chart-related sibling at a glance.

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 says when to call it and what to do instead when the requested artifact is absent: for a trend chart, build an inline {"kind": "custom_chart", ...} spec rather than looking for a catalog_id, with a pointer to create_dashboard's description. It also gives the precondition for using grid_cols/size_bounds before passing an explicit w/h.

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