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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety behavior needs no restating. The description does add one piece of extra information the annotations cannot convey: the result is meant to feed create_board's argument. It says nothing about result ordering, caching, or whether the list is exhaustive beyond the single scoping phrase.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The resource is front-loaded and the consumer linkage to create_board follows immediately.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema lookup, the description covers what the tool returns (occasion values) and why those values matter. It could be more complete by naming a result field or stating that the list is static, but the essentials an agent needs are present.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is a non-issue and the baseline 4 applies. The description does not need to explain any inputs and does not confuse the reader with any.

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 ("Lists the occasions this group-card service supports") and explicitly ties the output to create_board. An agent can distinguish it from board_status, create_board, and suggest_prompts without opening any 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?

The clause "with the value to pass to create_board" makes the intended usage clear: fetch this before calling create_board. It stops short of naming an explicit when-not or alternative path, but for a zero-parameter lookup the context is unambiguous.

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