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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, closed-world safety. The description adds meaningful invariants beyond that: the content is the same for everyone, does not change during a conversation, and should be read once and reused.

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?

It is front-loaded with the capability content, then gives the static/read-once usage rule, then notes the equivalent resource. Three tight sentences with no wasted text.

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 shape need not be explained, and annotations already carry the safety profile. With zero parameters and a clear static-reference usage rule, the description is complete for correct invocation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter meaning to clarify. The description correctly does not add irrelevant input details.

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 exactly what the tool returns: topic types, allowed widget kinds, card sizes, ranges, plans, and theme options. It distinguishes the tool from sibling dashboard/topic mutation tools by making clear this is a static capability reference, not an action on a 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?

It explicitly says to read it once before the first dashboard change and reuse it, telling the agent both when to call and not to poll. It also identifies the dashly://capabilities resource as an equivalent alternative.

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