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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context ('private boards', 'bounded set of currently published scene references'), but it does not explain pagination behavior or how the bounded set is determined, and 'bounded' remains vague.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate. The phrase 'bounded set' is somewhat vague, but overall it is efficiently structured.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety/idempotency, but the description leaves major gaps for a four-parameter listing tool. With 0% schema coverage, an agent cannot determine how cursor-based pagination works, what board_id filters, or how limit differs from items_limit.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for four undocumented parameters. It does not mention limit, cursor, board_id, or items_limit at all, leaving an agent with no semantic guidance for any parameter.

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 ('List') and resources (private boards plus currently published scene references), which is clearer than a generic list tool. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as list_brands, get_scenes, or search_scenes, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_brands, get_scenes, search_scenes, or save_to_board. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria beyond the bare purpose.

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