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

Annotations already declare readOnly/no-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds the real behavioral detail that archived boards are hidden by default and that `q` matches on name. It also discloses a display side-effect (the [[board:ID]] card rendering), which goes beyond structured fields, though it doesn't cover pagination or result limits.

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-loads the core purpose, then layers routing, filtering, follow-up, and formatting guidance with no filler. Each sentence carries a distinct actionable instruction.

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 read-only list tool whose annotations carry the safety profile and whose schema documents all four params, the description supplies the missing pieces: sibling disambiguation, filter defaults, the required follow-up view call, and reply formatting. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description nonetheless adds meaning by stating the default visibility rule for archived boards and the name-matching semantics of `q`. It does not elaborate on the workspace parameter beyond what the schema says.

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+resource ('Lists sketch boards') and enumerates the returned fields (name, id, kind, shape count, last activity). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling napkin_docs_list by contrasting spatial canvases (boards) with markdown documents (docs).

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 concrete trigger phrases ('sketch, drawing, whiteboard, or napkin') and an explicit alternative ('the markdown DOCUMENTS are docs — napkin_docs_list'). It also prescribes the follow-up flow: find it here, then LOOK at it with napkin_boards_view before discussing contents.

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