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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one addition of substance is 'No caller-supplied SQL', which usefully signals that only registered queries can run — but it says nothing about auth requirements, what happens with a stale query_id, or result size behavior.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the key constraint is stated up front. It is efficient, though extreme brevity is arguably part of why the gaps elsewhere exist.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still leaves an agent unable to construct a valid call: nothing explains the params/filters object shapes or how a query_id is obtained. For a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, that is a material shortfall.

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% across five parameters, and the two genuinely ambiguous ones (params, filters) are untyped free-form objects with additionalProperties=true and no explanation of their accepted shape. The description never mentions params, filters, dashboard_id, or workspace_id, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('run one registered chart query') and adds a scoping constraint ('No caller-supplied SQL') that separates it from the arbitrary-SQL sibling query_dataset. It stops short of naming that sibling, so differentiation still requires inference.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (query_dataset, get_dashboard_view, get_dashboard_filter_options) that an agent must choose between. The agent is left to infer that this only works for pre-registered dashboard charts.

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