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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is payload context — and it delivers: ids are included, there are two dashboard categories, and entries carry reasons like at risk, just deployed, busiest. It stops short of describing ordering, pagination, or what happens with an empty result set.

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 with no filler, and the core content (what is listed) is front-loaded. The nested parentheticals make it a slightly dense read, 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 one optional parameter fully documented, no output schema, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers what an agent needs: what comes back (dashboard entries with ids) and why any entry matters. Nothing essential to correct invocation 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 the project parameter is already documented as a project id or name needed for multi-project tokens. The description adds nothing about scoping across projects, so the schema does all the work — the baseline 3 applies.

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 its two populations precisely: team-made dashboards (with ids) and Relia's per-service dashboards, plus a triage signal for each. It implicitly contrasts with the singular relia_dashboard sibling by being the enumeration, but never states that contrast 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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no routing to alternatives such as relia_dashboard for opening a single dashboard. The only hint is the 'why each one is worth opening' phrasing, which implies a triage purpose but leaves the agent to infer it.

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