dashboard.get_widget_by_id

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying the exact HTTP GET endpoint and stating that failure returns an error dict rather than raising an unhandled exception.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and endpoint. There is slight redundancy between 'Returns the full widget object as returned by the Sisense API' and the following 'Returns: dict[str, Any]' line, which prevents a perfect score.

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 GET with no output schema and well-covered parameters, the description is complete: it provides the endpoint, the expected return value, the error behavior, and the needed IDs. Combined with the strong input schema coverage, an agent has everything required to call this tool correctly.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, including clear definitions for dashboard_id, widget_id, and the admin_access retry behavior. The description itself does not need to add parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve a single widget by its dashboard and widget IDs.' It names the exact REST endpoint, making the operation unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools like dashboard_get_dashboard_by_id or dashboard_find_widgets_by_type.

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. It does not mention that dashboard_get_dashboard_by_id should be used for dashboards or that dashboard_find_widgets_by_type should be used when searching by widget type. The usage context is only implied by the endpoint and parameter names.

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