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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds an important behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it requires edit access to the dashboard. It does not describe return format or pagination, but for a simple read-only list operation the annotations carry the safety profile and the access requirement adds meaningful context.

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 a single focused sentence. Every element earns its place: the resource, the scope ('attached to a dashboard'), the clarification that connections are data sources, and the edit-access requirement. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with clarifying annotations, the description is largely complete: it states the purpose, scope, and access requirement. The lack of an output schema means the return value is not formally documented, but the likely result—a list of connections/data sources—is strongly implied by the tool name and description.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'attached to a Duvo Pulse dashboard' implicitly identifies artifactId as the dashboard ID, and the parameter name plus format constraint help further. However, the description never explicitly maps artifactId to the dashboard, so the semantic link is inferred rather than stated.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('connections (data sources) attached to a Duvo Pulse dashboard'), clearly clarifying that 'connections' means data sources. This also distinguishes it from broader tools like listConnections and from other dashboard-specific listers such as listPulseDashboards or listPulseDashboardVersions.

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 useful context by noting that listing requires edit access, which sets an implicit prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as the generic listConnections or the related getPulseDashboard, leaving the usage guidance mostly 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.