Open the cross-layer dashboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by describing output format variation (rendered vs. text depending on host) and the no-match behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Description is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or unnecessary 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?

Given the complexity (7 optional params, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: dashboard contents, identifier interchangeability, output format variation, and no-match handling. It could mention the project dependency (covered in schema) but overall is sufficient.

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%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds useful context that only one identifier is needed and they all resolve to the same customer, which is not in the schema. This clarifies usage patterns.

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?

Description clearly states the tool renders a customer's cross-layer dashboard with specific components (pay, entitlements, read-cost) and returns a text summary or rendered dashboard. It distinguishes from siblings like get_customer, get_revenue, and get_read_cost which focus on individual pieces.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when asked to show, open, or visualize a customer's full picture.' It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context from sibling tools provides differentiation. The guidance is clear and actionable.

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