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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is clearly non-destructive. The description adds little beyond that, such as mentioning MCP Apps UI, which is a minor UI detail rather than a behavioral trait. No contradiction exists, but value added over annotations is minimal.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action and modes. The Japanese translation is redundant but not harmful, and the whole is under 30 words. Slight waste in duplication prevents a 5.

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 and the tool being a simple 'open' action, the description is somewhat adequate. However, it does not convey what the dashboard displays, how parameters interact, or what the user will see, leaving the agent to rely on the schema and output schema. Given seven parameters, a bit more context would help.

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 86%, with all parameters except propertyType having descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter context; it does not explain relationships, defaults, or the meaning of propertyType. Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 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 states a clear verb ('Open') and resource ('visualization dashboard'), and specifies two modes (2D map / PLATEAU 3D view). This is specific enough to distinguish from the data-analysis siblings, although it does not explicitly name which sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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 its purpose (use to open a dashboard) and lists modes, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose 2D vs 3D, nor when not to use this tool or which alternative to pick. Basic context is present, exclusions are absent.

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