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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing behavioral: no defaults for include_archived vs only_archived, no pagination/limit behavior, no note on what an empty result means.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though so terse that the brevity comes at the cost of missing detail rather than being a model of denseness.

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 simple, fully annotated, zero-required-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is just barely sufficient to select the tool. It leaves the agent guessing about the archive-flag interaction and the shape of the result.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (code, title, limit, only_archived, include_archived) are already documented with match semantics. The description adds no extra meaning, so the 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?

The phrase 'discover boards' conveys the resource and a retrieval intent, but it is a vague verb that never states this is a filtered list operation or what it returns. It also does not distinguish it from siblings like get_board_by_namespace, which also surfaces a board.

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?

It gives an explicit workflow trigger: run this before creating or filtering tasks. That is real context an agent can act on, though no when-not conditions or alternative tools (search_tasks, get_board_by_namespace) are named.

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