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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds value by enumerating exactly which metrics the snapshot returns and scoping them to 'this Prosyo workspace', which is meaningful behavioral content beyond the 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 front-loaded sentence listing the payload contents with no filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 is the only source for what comes back, and it lists the key fields (campaigns, replies, inbox, credits, health). It is sufficient for an agent to decide to call it, though it doesn't describe field formats or freshness of the snapshot.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly implies a parameterless, workspace-scoped call with nothing to configure.

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 resource (a dashboard snapshot) and enumerates the contents: running campaigns, replies, unread inbox, credits, and account health. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_campaign, list_campaigns, or list_inbox, which return individual entities rather than an aggregate.

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 word 'snapshot' and 'Dashboard' imply the use case (quick orientation / aggregate status check), but the description never states when to prefer this over get_entitlements, list_inbox, or list_campaigns, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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