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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by noting the metadata is board-independent, telling the agent no board context is required even though nearly every sibling is board-scoped.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the prerequisite-for-write guidance last. 'Use this command to' is mild filler but nothing else 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-optional-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it returns ('json-schema-like' types/defaults), how to scope the call, and when to call it. Nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 key parameter already documents 'Omit for all available settings'. The description's 'pass a key to inspect one setting; omit for all' largely restates the schema, adding only the downstream rationale of validating keys before a write.

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: discover board settings, their types and defaults in a json-schema-like form. It clearly differs from set_board_setting (write) but never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_board_settings, which is the most likely confusion point.

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 call conditions: pass a key to inspect one setting, omit for all, and call this before set_board_setting to learn valid keys and types. It lacks an exclusion against get_board_settings, so the 'when not to use' half is missing.

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