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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the nature of Pulse dashboards and the ordering, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination details or potential side effects, which are minor given the read-only nature.

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, compact sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key sorting detail. It contains no filler or redundant information, and the parenthetical adds value by explaining what Pulse dashboards are.

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, read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and clear annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains what is returned and the default ordering. The only minor gap is that the phrase 'your dashboards' could be misinterpreted as only dashboards created by the user, while the scope parameter also allows 'team' and 'shared' variants; however, the schema clarifies this.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (limit, scope, offset) fully described including defaults and enum values. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but it does give contextual meaning to 'your' dashboards and the ordering, which aligns with the default scope. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('Duvo Pulse dashboards'), with a clarifying parenthetical explaining what these are. It also distinguishes from sibling list tools by specifying 'dashboards' and the ordering ('most recently updated first').

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need to list dashboards), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. For example, it does not say 'use getPulseDashboard for a single dashboard' or clarify when to choose this over listPulseDashboardVersions. The usage context is clear but not fully guided.

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