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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent ('it doesn't change anything'). It adds real value beyond the annotations: the reachable-endpoint whitelist, the exclusion of sensitive endpoint classes, and the note that secrets are stripped from responses. It does not describe pagination or output size limits for the bulk /api/export case.

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 operation and its read-only nature, then a compact endpoint inventory that earns its space by enumerating exactly what is callable. The endpoint list is dense but each entry adds a distinct capability; the prose is not padded with filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by sketching return shapes per endpoint (user id/name/email, board lists, embed list, link-preview title/description, attachment type/size). Combined with the reachability and auth constraints, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only response volume/pagination for the export endpoint is left 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantics: the path must be a Decknote-relative path, not a full URL, and the query object carries optional string/number/boolean parameters. That exceeds what the schema's field descriptions convey.

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 ('Reads from Decknote's HTTP API ... with GET') and immediately scopes it as read-only. It also distinguishes itself from the 70+ dedicated siblings by declaring it 'covers what no dedicated tool returns,' with concrete examples (uploaded text file contents, link previews). An agent can tell what this tool is for 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 for use: only for data no dedicated tool returns, with examples of such cases. It also supplies a when-not list (authentication, token, session, admin, payment and internal endpoints are not reachable). It does not name specific sibling tools to prefer for the common endpoints it lists (e.g. boards), so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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