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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world safety, but the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that access is membership-gated and, critically, that unknown-namespace, unknown-board, and non-member errors are indistinguishable — preventing an agent from attempting to diagnose or enumerate via retries. It does not say what is returned or how archived boards behave.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the resolution mechanics and the error semantics. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 2-param read tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, resolution order, and failure modes. The only real gap is that the return payload (a board object? which fields?) is never characterized, which matters since no output schema exists.

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%, with the board_code constraint (3 chars, case-insensitive, legacy Unicode) already documented in the schema. The description adds the ordering relationship between the two parameters (namespace resolved first, board scoped within it), which is a modest but genuine semantic addition. Baseline 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?

"Canonical lookup for a board" names a specific verb (resolve/retrieve) and resource, and the second sentence spells out the exact resolution path (namespace slug → 3-char board code). This implicitly separates it from list_boards/search_tasks, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only implied: the tool requires both a namespace slug and a board code, so an agent can infer it is for known-identifier fetches rather than discovery. There is no explicit "use this instead of list_boards when..." guidance or statement of prerequisites (e.g., needing membership).

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