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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation it discloses output semantics: every agent carries a can_work_board verdict and blockers are surfaced via cannot_work_board_reason. It also explains the downstream consequence (all tickets escalate to a human) when no agent can work the board, which is real behavioral context an agent cannot get from annotations.

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?

It is a long description, but the purpose and returned fields are front-loaded and each sentence carries information (field list, verdict semantics, diagnostic use, sibling distinction). Slight redundancy in restating the board-worker concept keeps it from a 5.

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 correctly compensates by naming the key returned fields (can_work_board, cannot_work_board_reason, agents_that_can_work_the_board). Along with the read-only notice and sibling contrast, nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents board_workers_only fully. The description reinforces the board-worker concept but adds no syntax, default, or filtering detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (list) plus the precise resource (the organisation's AI agents, clarified as the task definitions behind agent runs), and it enumerates the decision fields returned. It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_agent_runs, so an agent can pick correctly without opening either schema.

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 an explicit triggering question ('why is nothing on the board being worked') and the diagnostic condition (agents_that_can_work_the_board is 0). It also names the neighbouring alternative, list_agent_runs, and states exactly what that sibling does not show.

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