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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts beyond that: only "live" embeds are returned (not revoked ones) and the user must own the board. It does not describe return shape or ordering, but that is a minor gap given annotations carry the operation semantics.

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?

One compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the parenthetical clarifying "embed" rather than padding. The phrasing is slightly hedged with nested qualifiers, but no sentence is wasted.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope and the ownership precondition. It stops short of describing the boardId value or what a returned embed contains, leaving the agent to infer both.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter boardId has no description in either place. The phrase "a board the user owns" implies an ownership requirement on boardId, which is marginal added meaning, but the format of the identifier is left entirely unspecified.

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 ("Lists the live embeds of a board") and defines what an embed is via the parenthetical, so an agent understands the object being returned. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like create_embed or revoke_embed, but the read framing does that implicitly.

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 is implied (read the embeds of a board the user owns) and an ownership precondition is stated, which helps the agent decide applicability. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance and no note on what to do for boards the user does not own.

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