dashbrr_get_maintainerr_collections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the field list (id, title, isActive, etc.) which hints at return structure, but does not disclose pagination, limits, or other behavioral characteristics. This is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences, both useful. The first sentence states the resource and return fields, and the second covers the parameter requirement. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple read-only collection tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what data is returned and the one parameter constraint. Although usage guidelines are absent, the tool is simple enough that this description is nearly complete.

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 input schema only defines instance_id as a string with no description. The description adds crucial semantic information: 'instance_id must be type-prefixed, e.g. maintainerr-0', providing an example that clarifies the expected format. This compensates well for the 0% schema coverage.

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 identifies the resource as 'Maintainerr collections' and lists the fields returned, but lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve' in the description itself. However, the tool name uses 'get' and sibling tools are all get_* operations, making the purpose clear enough.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about appropriate scenarios. The description only provides a parameter hint, which does not serve as usage guidance.

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