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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context about what the returned document contains (card ordering, size options, style overrides, density), but says nothing about pagination, response shape limits, or access requirements beyond that.

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?

The purpose is correctly front-loaded in the first sentence, but the remainder is a dense, semicolon-chained block of domain model detail (size, style, scene, density) for a one-parameter getter. The content is relevant but overstuffed relative to what an agent needs to invoke the tool.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not restate return values, and it instead supplies the conceptual model needed to interpret the document, plus a pointer to get_capabilities. That covers the essentials for a read-only getter, leaving only minor gaps around response limits.

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 the single dashboardId parameter is fully documented in the schema ('from list_dashboards'), so the description adds no parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies 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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Returns one dashboard and its full document'), which is immediately distinguishable from list_dashboards. It never explicitly names a sibling, but the singular scope makes the retrieval role clear.

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 a contextual cue that this precedes update_dashboard, and it routes the agent to get_capabilities (tiles.draws) for widget details. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_dashboards or other readers, so usage is only implied.

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