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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it is scoped to boards the user can access, returns the user's role, and reports archived/favorite status. It does not cover pagination or ordering, so it falls short of a 5.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the returned fields and ID utility. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple read-only list operation whose annotations cover safety and whose sole parameter is fully documented in the schema, the description supplies the crucial missing return-shape information. An agent knows what it will get and why the IDs matter; nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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?

The schema fully documents the single optional includeArchived parameter, including its default. The description does not add any further parameter meaning; mentioning 'whether it is archived' describes output, not the filter. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('boards the user can access'), and its enumeration of returned fields (lists, role, archived/favorite) makes it distinguishable from single-board tools like get_board. The scope 'user can access' further separates it from any admin or global listing.

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 final sentence gives clear context for why an agent would call this tool: the returned board and list IDs are used everywhere else in the server. It does not name alternatives or state exclusions, but the implied discovery use case is unambiguous.

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