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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the important behavioral detail that update_time is a token to carry into upsert_dashboard, which is a real workflow constraint not visible in the annotations. It does not add anything about auth, scoping, or failure modes, but the key round-trip behavior is disclosed.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the return shape, then tile structure, then the actionable update_time tip. There is no filler or repetition.

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 return-value detail is arguably redundant, but it makes the tool self-contained; the missing piece is the empty-parameter case and the retrieval story relative to list_dashboards. For a simple two-parameter read tool, that is a modest rather than crippling gap.

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 50% (only project_id is documented, and even that description just points at list_projects). The description never explains what `id` means for this call, nor what happens when both optional parameters are omitted — a genuinely ambiguous case the schema leaves open. The mention of update_time is not a parameter clarification since update_time is not in the input schema.

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 definition opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get returns one dashboard') and enumerates exactly what comes back — time window, tiles, update_time — plus the tile sub-structure (id, name, spec/markdown, chart, grid position). It doesn't explicitly contrast with list_dashboards, so the sibling separation is only implied by 'one dashboard'.

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 only stated usage pattern is the read-modify-write loop: 'Pass update_time to upsert_dashboard when you edit the dashboard.' There is no guidance on when to choose this over list_dashboards, no exclusions, and no prerequisites.

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