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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a real behavioral trait beyond them — results are scored by term match, usage and recency — but says nothing about result volume, empty-result behavior, or how `limit` interacts with ranking.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and ends with the ranking behavior. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 3-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the definition is serviceable: the resource and ranking are stated and the schema covers mode semantics. However, nothing tells the agent what a result looks like or how to interpret a low-confidence or empty match, which is a meaningful gap for a discovery tool.

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 67%: `mode` and `question` are well documented in the schema, while `limit` has only a default. The description contributes nothing to parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema is doing the work.

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 ('Find') and a specific resource ('dashboards and saved reports') scoped to an analytics question, plus the ranking mechanism. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_dashboards (enumeration) and find_relevant_analysis (analysis rather than content), though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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 itself gives no when-to-use guidance; the routing logic lives entirely in the `mode` enum description (auto vs fallback vs browse). That is genuinely useful, but it is parameter-level documentation rather than the description stating when this tool is the right choice over find_relevant_analysis or list_dashboards.

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