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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing the display-order behavior and the widget-count payload, which are not present in annotations.

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, front-loaded with verb and resource, with only two relevant qualifiers (display order and widget count). No filler or repetition.

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 read-only list with no output schema, the description covers the main return value (views in display order with widget counts). It leaves minor ambiguity about the exact shape of each view item, but the core call and response are clearly specified.

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 single dashboardId parameter is fully described in the input schema ('Dashboard id.'), so schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description only reiterates the dashboard context and adds no format, validation, or lookup guidance.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('views (tabs) on a dashboard'), and adds ordering plus widget-count detail. This clearly separates it from siblings like list_widgets, create_view, or reorder_views.

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 provides clear context: the tool is for retrieving the tabs of a dashboard in display order with widget counts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the resource and output are specific enough to make the intended use obvious.

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