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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description adds rich behavioral context: unmeasured axes are valid first-class responses, not errors or zeros; unknown names return a list of board names; and responses come from a live board URL. There is no contradiction with the 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core operation and packs useful detail into three sentences. It is slightly dense in the middle, where the row fields follow the axis-id clause, but every part earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers lookup behavior, edge cases such as unmeasured axes and unknown names, and the data source. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke it 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 input schema has 100% coverage for the sole parameter, including case-insensitivity and the unknown-name fallback. The description reinforces exact board spelling and the fields returned, but it does not materially change the parameter's meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 concrete action and resource: returns one axis row from the live GSPC board. It lists the row's fields and clarifies that it is a single-axis lookup, not a board-level or card-level operation. The 'Never a certification' line further sharpens the tool's purpose.

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 clearly establishes that this is a single-axis lookup by exact board id, but it does not name sibling alternatives or explicitly state when to choose this over board_totals, list_cards, or get_card. The 'Never a certification' line gives one negative boundary, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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