ai_admin_query_dashboard_bundle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the provider_options structure and 'enabled providers' scope, but does not disclose output format, pagination, or behavior when no providers are specified. With annotations covering the core safety traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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 description is two sentences, both front-loaded with the primary purpose then a key parameter detail. No wasted words—every sentence carries useful information.

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 8 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It explains only the provider_options nesting and the cross-provider scope. Most parameters are undocumented, and the return shape is unknown. For a tool of this complexity, the description is incomplete and leaves substantial gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful explanation for provider_options (provider_options[provider_id]) and implies providers refers to enabled providers, but leaves start, end, top_n, bucket_width, credential_refs, and include_metadata unexplained. Some value is added, but not sufficient for full compensation.

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 clearly states the verb 'build' and resource 'dashboard bundles', with a specific scope of 'across one or more enabled providers'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like query_usage and query_costs by emphasizing bundling across providers.

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 description provides clear context: this tool is for building aggregated dashboard bundles across multiple providers. It implies usage for multi-provider scenarios, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. The sibling names hint at alternatives, but the description itself lacks a when-not-to-use statement.

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