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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds useful content-scope disclosure that annotations cannot convey: what entities appear (open tickets, recently done) and which fields are surfaced (state, assignee, reviewer). It stops short of defining "recently done" or describing ordering/paging.

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?

Two short sentences, content scope first, purpose second, with no redundant restatement of the title. Every clause carries information an agent would not get from the schema or annotations.

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-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, this covers what an agent needs: the board's contents, its fields, and its rough scope. The only omission is interaction between the state filter and the open/plus-done scope, which a quick follow-up detail would have closed.

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 100% and the single `state` parameter is fully described with an enum, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description adds no filter semantics and in fact creates mild ambiguity, since "every open ticket ... plus recently done ones" is never reconciled with how the state filter narrows that set.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Show the workspace board") and enumerates what the board contains: open tickets with state, assignee and reviewer plus recently done ones. That distinguishes it implicitly from single-item readers like get_ticket, though no sibling is named to make the contrast explicit.

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?

"Use it to see what the team is working on" gives a clear situational cue but no exclusions or alternatives, so an agent must infer for itself when get_ticket or a job/access listing would be the better call. This is implied usage rather than explicit routing guidance.

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