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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds real behavioral context: pinned-first then most-recent (reply counts) ordering, a 200-item cap, which fields are searched, and the trust note that titles/snippets are member-authored. It does not explain how to page beyond 200, but the disclosure is well beyond the annotations.

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 core action in the first clause, followed by ordering, return fields, search scope, and permission. Dense but each sentence carries a distinct fact; the trust note and permission line are short and load-bearing.

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?

With no output schema and readOnly annotations already present, the description supplies the missing return shape (title, snippet, starter, comment count, pinned/archived), ordering, and the cap. Only pagination beyond the 200 limit and any offset semantics are left unaddressed.

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 75%, so the schema documents most parameters. The description clarifies that q searches both titles and bodies and that kind selects notes vs discussions, but adds little on boardId or the archived filter (which the schema already explains as default-false). Baseline 3 fits when the schema does most of the lifting.

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 a project's notes or discussions') and even enumerates the return fields, so the agent knows exactly what this produces. The kind enum (note/discussion) is reflected in the description, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_page or list_boards.

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 by the verb-plus-resource framing, but the description never says when to choose this over get_page or other list_* siblings, nor does it name any alternative. It gives a permission note ('Any role on the project reads') but no exclusions or selection criteria.

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