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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it explains the returned document structure (a wall of ordered cards, each with 1-4 widgets) and cross-references external dependencies like update_topic for scene and tiles.icons for style.

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?

Return behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence and every subsequent clause conveys domain facts (sizes, style, scene, density, cross-references) rather than filler. It is dense and slightly run-on, but nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, annotations, and a schema that fully documents the input, the agent has what it needs. The description enriches understanding of the document model and defers widget specifics to get_capabilities, leaving little missing.

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% for the single dashboardId parameter, whose description already says 'from list_dashboards.' The description adds no syntax or format detail about the parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns one dashboard and its full document.' The singular 'one dashboard' implies distinction from list_dashboards, though it never names the sibling explicitly. The rest of the description is domain model rather than purpose, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

'Read it before changing it' gives an implicit read-before-mutate directive and points to get_capabilities (tiles.draws) for widget detail. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over list_dashboards or update_dashboard, so the routing is left to inference.

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