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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description earns credit for adding the authorization model (board membership or public board) and the shape of what is returned. It does not state pagination, ordering, or behavior for an unknown task, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste: the operation and returned fields come first, and the auth constraint follows. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema beyond necessary framing.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, access, and the returned field set, which is enough to invoke it correctly. Missing pagination or empty-result behavior keeps it short of complete.

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%: board_id and task_number are both documented in the schema, and the description adds only the framing 'of a board task' without new syntax or constraints. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: 'List the attachments of a board task', followed by the exact fields returned (id, name, size, mime type, caption). The scoping to a task (via board_id + task_number) implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_board_files, but 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?

The description gives an access prerequisite ('Read access requires board membership (or a public board)') but no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to the board-level alternative list_board_files. Usage is only inferable from the resource named.

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