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

Annotations already mark this as a safe read, but the description adds crucial behavioral detail beyond structured fields: the address is short-lived (2 minutes to connect), uses SSE, and announces every change and viewer. This directly informs how and when the agent should call it.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return value, then lifetime and format, then the use case. Every clause earns its place with no repetition or 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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, its lifetime, and its purpose. It omits any mention of the boardId parameter or error conditions, but the overall picture is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0% and the description never mentions boardId, so no extra meaning is added. However, with only one required parameter whose name is self-explanatory, the gap is minor; the description neither compensates nor misleads.

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 ('Returns') with a precise resource ('a board's live event stream'), and further names the payload type ('Server-Sent Events URL') and its role. An agent can distinguish this from get_board or show_board without inspecting schemas.

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?

It provides clear context for use: 'Used by the board view to update itself.' This tells the agent the intended scenario (live UI updates). No explicit exclusions or alternative tools are named, but the context is unambiguous.

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