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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple 'list' verb by revealing ordering (newest first), return contents (ids and links), scoping (for this account), and truncation semantics (truncated true means more exist). This is robust transparency for a read-only list operation.

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?

The description is three sentences with zero filler. The core purpose and ordering are front-loaded, followed by parameter guidance and truncation handling. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns (ids and links), ordering, scoping, parameter usage, and truncation interpretation. There are no missing details that would prevent correct invocation or result interpretation.

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?

The schema already fully covers the parameter (case-insensitive substring matching), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining why to use this parameter (to find a specific dashboard, not scan the full list) and its role in overcoming truncation, thus going beyond the schema's literal definition.

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 clearly states the verb (List), the resource (dashboards for this account), the ordering (newest first), and the included attributes (ids and links). This immediate clarity distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_dashboards or delete_dashboard without needing to open their schemas.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the titleContains parameter ('to find the one dashboard the user is describing instead of scanning the full list') and how to handle truncation ('narrow with titleContains to reach them'). It lacks explicit mention of alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over siblings based on the resource being dashboards.

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