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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description layers substantial extra context on top: the plan prerequisite ('Needs Queues on the team's plan'), the two failure modes with hints ('unsupported' for undeclared or changed dashboards, 'error' when unreadable), and the default time-zone behavior (UTC days unless time_zone is passed). That is well beyond the structured safety hints.

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?

It is a dense single block of roughly 180 words, but nearly every clause carries operational information (alternatives, failure states, defaults, presentation guidance). It is front-loaded with the resource, though the sheer density makes it harder to scan than a bulleted or shorter form.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns — and it does: per-tile label/value/unit/display, optional description and note fields, the unsupported/error statuses with hints, the link path plus full url, and the range echo. Nothing an agent needs to call or present the result correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter and result-linked meaning: omitting dashboard_id reads every dashboard, range only applies to dashboards with a time-range control, and the result echoes back which range and zone were used. It largely restates schema text but the range/zone echo adds genuine value.

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 opening states a specific verb and resource — the figures a Module automation's Pulse dashboards show — and immediately scopes it ('computed server-side the same way the dashboard computes them'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings getPulseDashboardHtml and Case-paging, so an agent can route correctly without opening another schema.

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 gives a direct when-to-use rule ('Call this for any number on a Module dashboard') and names two alternatives with the reason to reject each (getPulseDashboardHtml refuses Module dashboards for size; recounting via Cases can disagree with the tile the user sees). This is explicit when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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