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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: only public artifacts are listed, and unlisted ones never appear here but load via get_dashboard — a scoping constraint the agent needs. It also discloses the return envelope, though pagination defaults are left to the schema.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and the recall-first rationale, then the filters and return shape. Dense but nearly all of it earns its place; the parenthetical marketing-ish phrasing ('adopt > extend > build for UIs too') is slightly self-indulgent but still conveys usage intent.

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-value explanation is not required, and the description's brief '{ entries, total, offset, limit }' note is a bonus. The public-only scope and get_dashboard fallback round out what an agent needs; only pagination behavior is left entirely to 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 coverage is 100% and every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the capabilityType example and sort enum. The description restates the same filters and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 (search/discover) and resource (existing public dashboards), and clearly differentiates from siblings: it points to get_dashboard for unlisted artifacts and contrasts with the generate/save/fork flow. An agent can distinguish it from get_dashboard or save_dashboard without opening a 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?

Explicitly frames when to use it ('before you generate a new one', recall-first, 'adopt > extend > build') and names the alternative path for the unlisted case (load by slug via get_dashboard). Both the when and the when-not are stated.

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