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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: the return includes a *temporary* read-only render URL, and the negative scope confirms no mutation of source data. It does not cover the render URL's lifetime or auth requirements in detail, keeping it short of 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core read operation, then routing, then exclusions. Every sentence adds distinct value with no repetition of structured fields.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values, and it still summarizes contents well; annotations cover safety. The one real gap is that neither parameter is explained, which matters for a tool requiring two opaque IDs.

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 0% for both required parameters; dashboard_id and workspace_id carry no documentation anywhere. The description only implies workspace scoping via 'workspace dashboard' and offers no syntax, format, or lookup guidance to compensate for the coverage gap on a 2-parameter tool.

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 verb (Read) and resource (workspace dashboard layout, queries, filters, dataset refs) with precise scope, and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools query_dashboard and get_dashboard_filter_options. An agent can identify the tool without opening the 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?

Names two concrete alternatives with the condition that selects each ('Use query_dashboard for chart results and get_dashboard_filter_options for filter choices'), and adds an explicit when-not ('Does not create or modify the dashboard or source data'). Routing is fully determined.

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