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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (mutation, not idempotent, not destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds that the created board and its id are returned, which matters because there is no output schema, but it does not disclose whether duplicate names are allowed, what happens on repeat calls (non-idempotent), or any plan/permission requirements beyond what the schema states.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is created, followed by the domain constraint and the return value. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 four-parameter, output-schema-less mutation tool the description does the important work of naming the return value and the kind constraint. It stops short of covering edge behavior (name uniqueness, error cases, where the new board surfaces in the collection), but nothing essential to making the call 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 description coverage is 75%: projectId and workspaceId are documented in the schema (including the multi-workspace requirement), and kind carries its own enum description. The description largely restates the kind enum rather than adding meaning, and says nothing about the undocumented name parameter beyond its requiredness.

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 ('Create a named board') and goes further by defining the domain object: a board holds exactly one kind of item (ad, site_page, company, persona). Combined with the close siblings sightglass_update_board and sightglass_delete_board, an agent can identify this as the creation operation without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the creation semantics but never stated explicitly: there is no guidance on when to create a board versus using the sightglass_list_saved/find_* flows, no prerequisites, and no note about coexisting boards. The one-kind-of-item rule is a constraint on the tool rather than a routing instruction.

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