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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: archived boards are hidden by default, and the [[board:ID]] citation convention renders a clickable card. This is useful, non-obvious behavior that the schema and annotations do not convey.

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?

Every sentence is front-loaded with high-value information: scope, return fields, sibling disambiguation, filter behavior, and the two-step find-then-view workflow. No filler or repetition.

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?

Given four optional parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral layer: default archiving visibility, the view-before-discussing workflow, and the citation format. An agent can invoke this tool correctly and follow the intended downstream behavior.

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, but the description adds a semantic nuance not captured in the schema: includeArchived reveals hidden archived boards specifically, and q narrows by name. The workspace parameter's default-workspace behavior is left to the schema, which handles it thoroughly.

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

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 explicit routing guidance: when the user mentions a sketch, drawing, whiteboard, or napkin, find it here, then view it with napkin_boards_view before discussing contents. It also names napkin_docs_list as the alternative for documents, leaving no ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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