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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that widgets come back in order with specific fields and that data toggles numeric payloads, which is useful output context, but it says nothing about what happens on a missing/invalid dashboard id or about response size.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the base return shape and then the optional numeric payload; every clause carries information. The phrasing is telegraphic and slightly awkward, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return and does so for the widget fields and the data-mode numbers. It leaves out error behavior and any mention that numbers are only added when data=true for a specific range/environment, minor gaps for a 4-parameter read 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 100%, with the enum and defaults for range and explanations for data and environment all present in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes the schema's 'with data / over the range' phrasing without adding format, timezone, or default details.

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 names the resource and spells out the returned shape (widgets with kind, title, width, query, plus numbers when data is set), so an agent knows this is a single-dashboard fetch rather than a listing. It never states the verb explicitly or contrasts itself with list_dashboards, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus list_dashboards or search_events, and no prerequisites beyond the schema note that dashboardId comes from list_dashboards. The conditional vocabulary ('With data', 'over the range') implies usage but gives no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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