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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the 'newest first' ordering and cross-referencing fenbs_get_context and (via schema) fenbs_restore_lesson, though it does not discuss pagination or result size.

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 core purpose, then filtering options, with little waste. Minor awkwardness in 'read them before work like what they describe' slightly muddies the otherwise dense 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?

For a 7-param, 0-required list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, cross-tool overlap, and the main filters. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it leaves pagination/return-shape unstated.

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?

Schema coverage is only 57%, but the description compensates by explaining most filters: group (name, id, or "none"), status (new/applied/dismissed), project, task ref, and free text, plus a concrete q example ("LES-4"). It adds meaning beyond the raw schema for the highest-value filters.

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 resource (the board's lessons learned) and its ordering (newest first), and describes the payload (what happened, what we learned, what to do differently). Distinguishes itself from fenbs_get_lesson (single) and names the overlap with fenbs_get_context, so an agent can tell it apart without opening the 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 clear context ('read them before work like what they describe') and notes that new lessons also appear in fenbs_get_context, which helps route the agent. It does not explicitly state when-not to use it versus the other list_* tools, but the usage guidance is clear.

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