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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are scoped to the team's own dashboards, sorted newest first, and include a widget count per item. It says nothing about pagination mechanics or default/max page size, which the schema covers only at the parameter level.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the scope ('the team's own dashboards') and ordering, then the per-item payload. Every 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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, and item shape, and the schema handles pagination. It could be more complete by noting typical volume or that an empty list is possible, but nothing needed to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for limit (1-100, default 25) and cursor (continuation token), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is the expected baseline when coverage is high.

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 the resource (the team's own dashboards), the ordering (newest first), and a notable return attribute (widget count per dashboard). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_dashboard, which fetches a single dashboard, so it falls just short of 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. It does not tell the agent to prefer get_dashboard for a single dashboard, nor when a listing is appropriate versus a search. The only implicit cue is the word 'own' implying team scoping.

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