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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only/idempotent profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: newest-first ordering, that results carry ids and links, and the meaning of the truncated flag with a remediation path. It does not address result-size limits or pagination beyond the flag.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, and the purpose is front-loaded before the filter guidance and the truncation caveat.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description covers what is returned (ids, links), how it is ordered, and how to handle truncation, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 schema already defines titleContains as a case-insensitive substring match. The description adds intent-level framing (finding 'the one dashboard the user is describing'), but no syntax or format information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List dashboards stored for this account') and even specifies ordering and returned fields ('newest first, with ids and links'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the single-item sibling get_dashboard, so it stops short of a 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?

'Pass titleContains to find the one dashboard the user is describing instead of scanning the full list' gives clear when-to-use guidance for the filter, and the truncated note tells the agent how to reach more results. It never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not condition, so it is not a 5.

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