get_dashboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work by enumerating the exact payload (MRR with WoW change, new/expansion/contraction/churn breakdown, failed payments, 3-day expiring trials, Quick Ratio). It omits any note on latency, caching, or freshness of the aggregates, but the return-content disclosure is well beyond what 'get' alone implies.

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-loaded with the 'morning check' framing, then a compact return list and trigger phrases. The enumerated return fields are long but earn their place because no output schema exists; the only minor redundancy is the repeated 'check' phrasing.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return value itself — and it does so field by field, plus supplies the invocation triggers. For a zero-parameter, no-annotation aggregate tool, nothing an agent needs to select or call it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No misleading parameter hints are present.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('get everything important in one call') and enumerates exactly what is returned (MRR, movement, failed payments, expiring trials, Quick Ratio). This distinguishes it from the narrow siblings get_mrr, get_churn, get_failed_payments, etc., since it is clearly the aggregate dashboard rather than a single-metric endpoint.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions with concrete user phrasings ('how's my business doing?', 'morning check', 'what happened overnight?'), which is unusually strong routing guidance. It stops short of naming the alternative siblings for deep dives (e.g., use get_mrr for a single metric), so no exclusion guidance is provided.

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