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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond them — no mention of permissions, whether statuses are board-scoped or global, or that ordering is returned as a stable sequence.

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?

One short sentence with no padding, front-loaded with the resource. The only cost is the filler phrase 'Use this command to,' which delays the actual content.

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 read-only list tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, little is strictly required. However, with no output schema, the description could usefully state that it returns each status's identifier, name, and position — 'ordering' hints at this but never makes it explicit.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage and a schema description that already explains the default-to-active-board behavior, the schema carries the full burden. The description adds no meaning about board_id or what happens when a non-active board is requested.

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 (inspect) and resource (board status catalog and ordering), which is clear enough for an agent to know it returns the list of statuses for a board. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings such as create_status, update_status, or reorder_statuses, so the read-vs-write boundary is only inferable from the verb.

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?

The 'Use this command to...' phrasing is a generic lead-in with no condition for when this tool is preferred over alternatives like reorder_statuses or get_board_settings. No prerequisites, exclusions, or follow-up guidance are given.

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