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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: true): it explains filter AND semantics, the exact behavior of `overdue` (due_date strictly before today, not done), and the return envelope { boardId, mode, tasks } with ordering by sort. This enriches the read-only and non-destructive hints without contradiction.

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?

The description is packed into two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, then efficiently details filter behavior using backticks and examples. Every clause adds value—no repetition of schema field names except where it adds semantic meaning. Ideal length for the tool's complexity.

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 query tool, the description covers purpose, filtering, return shape, and ordering. It doesn't mention handling of locked boards via access_key (though schema provides a thorough description) or pagination, but these are not critical for core usage. Slightly more completeness could have been achieved by noting the access_key requirement is optional per board.

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?

With schema coverage at 63%, the description compensates by clarifying filter semantics: assignee as exact match, priority enum values, due_before/due_after as ISO date windows, and the ANDing of filters. This goes well beyond the schema's terse descriptions (e.g., 'Exact-match assignee filter').

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 clearly states the tool 'Read[s] tasks from a 'todo' board with server-side filtering', specifying the verb (read), resource (tasks), and key capability (server-side filtering). It distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with 'without pulling the whole board', and references list_tasks for field details, making its niche obvious.

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 description provides concrete use cases ('what's overdue?' / 'what's assigned to X?') and contrasts with pulling the whole board, implying it's for filtered reads. It doesn't explicitly name list_tasks as the alternative but the context is clear. It could have explicitly stated 'use this instead of list_tasks when filters are needed' for a 5.

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