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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: project scoping, the fact that queries are returned inline by default, and the OR-matching rule for search. It omits result-size limits, pagination, or ordering, which keeps it from a 5.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then search semantics, then use cases — nothing wasted. There is mild redundancy between "including the saved queries on each" and "what queries they contain," which keeps it off a 5.

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 no output schema, the description usefully sketches what comes back (dashboards with their saved queries) and how filtering works. It leaves the includeQueries=false behavior and any pagination or volume characteristics unstated, a modest gap for a list tool.

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%, so every parameter including 'search' and 'includeQueries' is already documented in the schema, and the description's search explanation largely restates it. The one added bit is the example topic ('FTUE funnel'), which is marginal. 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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List the analytics dashboards (boards) in the current project") and adds scope detail (queries inlined on each). It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_dashboard and list_queries by covering the collection plus its nested queries, but never names those siblings 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?

It states the concrete use cases — answering which dashboards exist, what queries they contain, or locating a specific dashboard — and explains when to use the 'search' parameter with a worked example ('FTUE funnel'). It stops short of exclusionary guidance such as "use get_dashboard when you already have an id."

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