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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds genuinely non-obvious traits: zero regeneration cost, an access-control rule (public/unlisted accessible to all, private owner-only), and a hidden side effect ('Increments the load counter'). The side effect is notable because a read-only-hinted call still mutates a counter, but it is disclosed rather than hidden. Failure modes (e.g. private artifact not owned) are not described.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and return value, then usage, then access rules, then side effect. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the schema.

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 the description need not enumerate returns beyond the brief 'manifest + metadata' summary. It supplies the usage context, access control, and side effect an agent needs, and the parameter is fully documented in the schema.

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% and the single parameter already documents the ua_... id form and the slug tail of /a/<slug>. The description's 'by its id or slug' merely restates that, adding no syntax or constraint beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Recall a saved dashboard by its id or slug') and immediately says what is returned ('full artifact (manifest + metadata)'). It is easily distinguishable from save_dashboard, update_dashboard, search_dashboards, fork_dashboard, and get_operator_dashboard, and the reload-vs-regenerate framing sharpens the intent.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use with a real user utterance ('open my pizza dashboard') and an explicit when-not (don't regenerate). It never names search_dashboards as the alternative for when the id/slug is unknown, which is the obvious complementary case, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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