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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by explaining the read-before-write intent and the consequence of skipping it ('silently drops panels and drifts the SQL'). It does not cover failure behavior for an unknown id, which keeps it at 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the workflow rationale. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 single-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage sequencing, and the concrete cost of misuse. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly in the dashboard-editing workflow.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already explains that id is 'as returned by mint_dashboard'. The description adds no syntax, format, or scoping detail beyond that, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the stored definition for an existing dashboard') rather than restating the name. The framing as the read-side of an edit workflow cleanly separates it from list_dashboards/describe_dashboards and positions it against update_dashboard.

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 prescribes the sequence ('Call this before update_dashboard') and names the alternative practice to avoid ('rather than rebuilding a definition from memory'). The condition that selects this tool is unambiguous.

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