get_dashboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses that the tool returns a snapshot (non-live), ordering is feed-based (not ranked), and metadata is user-generated. This is sufficient for a read-only tool, though it omits rate limits or auth requirements.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence defines purpose and scope, the second adds critical clarification on ordering and metadata source.

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?

Despite 4 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain return format, pagination, or parameter defaults. The mention of 'pricing info' is vague. Leaves significant gaps for an agent to use effectively.

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 description only implicitly mentions top_n (via backticks) but does not explain parameters like chain, network, or timeout_secs. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value for parameter understanding.

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 tool returns a snapshot of the first top_n agents with pricing info, and distinguishes itself from ranking tools by clarifying the order is from the discovery feed, not by quality.

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 implicitly tells when to use (for a discovery feed overview) and warns it is not a ranking, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_agents or search_agents. Provides good context but lacks explicit alternatives.

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