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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are newest-first and how far back they reach is capped by the board owner's plan (40 vs 200 entries), which the agent cannot learn from annotations or schema alone.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the constraint. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 two-parameter read-only listing with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the important missing context (ordering, plan-based depth). The remaining gap is the interplay between the limit parameter and the plan caps, which is left ambiguous.

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 only 50% (limit says just 'Default 50.', boardId has no description) and the description never mentions either parameter. Worse, it introduces an unresolved question: the plan-based retention caps appear to truncate the list independently of the limit parameter, and the description does not clarify whether limit can exceed or is overridden by those caps.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Lists a board's activity history') and adds useful detail about ordering ('newest first') and content ('who did what, and when'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like get_board or list_notifications, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage context is implied: the retention note (Free: 40 entries, Pro: 200) tells the agent this is a historical audit-style read bounded by plan. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives such as list_notifications or get_board, leaving selection to inference.

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