Finalize Dashboard Review

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses concrete behavior: captures at 390/1440/1728px, content-addresses the live deployment, and enumerates the failure classes that block the review (weak hierarchy, hidden fixture fields, spacing defects, source edits). That is meaningful context the annotations don't carry. It stops short of saying what the returned receipt contains.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then prerequisites, then the enforcement list. Dense but every sentence contributes; a minor cost is that the long rejection list is prose-only rather than structured, but nothing is wasted.

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 complex 8-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, it explains the validation behavior well but never describes the receipt object it returns, so an agent knows what to submit but not what comes back. That is a real gap given no output schema exists to compensate.

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?

At 75% schema coverage the schema already documents previewUrl, source, visibleSource, and componentSources. The description reinforces the mapping in prose ('exact source', 'unchanged data', 'installed components') but adds no format or constraint detail and leaves 'screen' and 'knownTerms' unaddressed, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 opening sentence gives a precise verb+resource: 'Issue a source-bound receipt for a completed dashboard.' That is concrete and distinct from the sibling review-dashboard-structure, though the description never explicitly contrasts the two, leaving the boundary to inference.

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?

It implies prerequisites ('submit the public HTTPS preview plus exact source, unchanged data, and installed components') and states a hard condition ('No trusted browser capture means incomplete'), but never says when to call this versus review-dashboard-structure or the other review tools, so usage is inferred rather than directed.

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