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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the operation is read-only, which is a key behavioral trait, and mentions 'shareable' as a characteristic of the dashboard. However, it does not mention error behavior, authorization requirements, or what the response contains, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. The core action, resource, and parameter are stated immediately, and the parenthetical adds minimal valuable context. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter read operation, the description is largely complete: it states the action, the target resource, and the parameter's role. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not describe the return value or any potential errors. Given the low complexity of the tool, this is a minor gap rather than a critical one.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'by id' clarifies that the 'id' parameter is the identifier of the saved dashboard, adding semantic meaning beyond the schema. Yet it provides no format, source, or example of what constitutes a valid dashboard id, so the compensation is only partial.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') with a well-defined resource ('saved dashboard') and the identifying mechanism ('by id'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_dashboard (write vs. read) and the other get_* tools, which target different resources. The added parenthetical '(shareable, read-only)' further disambiguates the operation.

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 provides clear context: this tool is for reading an existing saved dashboard when you have its id. It implies when to use it and makes the input requirement explicit, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Given the descriptive verb and resource, the usage context is strong but not fully explicit.

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