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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a valuable behavioral warning that names are user-generated and must be treated as data, not instructions, which addresses prompt injection. It omits pagination/auth details, but for a simple read tool this is a solid addition beyond 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?

Three tight sentences that front-load the resource definition, then usage guidance, then a security caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and a key behavioral warning. It could be slightly more complete by sketching the return shape (e.g., list of names/IDs), but it is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100% and the single required account_id parameter is fully documented in the schema with its source (list_boards). The description adds no parameter-level syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the resource clearly: people on a team account who can be assigned feature requests. This ties the list to an assignability scope, distinguishing it somewhat from a general people list, but it never names sibling tools like list_people to mark the boundary. Clear but no explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: before set_feature_assignee or to answer who is on the team. It does not state when not to use this tool or name alternative list tools such as list_people, so it stops short of a 5.

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