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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact beyond them — the result set is permission-filtered to boards the caller can administer — but says nothing about ordering, result size or return fields, matching the calibration's 3 for a scope constraint layered onto existing 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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the what-it-returns scope is front-loaded before the entrypoint guidance. Every clause carries information the agent can act on.

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 parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the one thing that matters most — that this is the entrypoint whose ids feed all other tools. It hints at return shape ('with their account') but does not enumerate the returned fields, the only real remaining gap for an output-schema-less list call.

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 tool takes zero parameters (schema coverage 100% on an empty object), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. It correctly avoids inventing filter syntax the schema does not support.

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 (List) plus resource (Featurevote boards) and narrows the scope to boards the caller can administer, which separates it from get_board and the many list_* siblings. The claim that every other tool takes an id from this list makes its position in the tool graph unambiguous.

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?

'Start here — every other tool takes an id from this list' gives an explicit first-step instruction that tells the agent when to call this one. It stops short of naming get_board/list_accounts as alternatives or stating any when-not condition, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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