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

Beyond the annotations it discloses concrete behavior: fields outside the user's plan return null and are named in the item's `locked` list, `lockedCount` indicates hidden results, and it instructs the agent to tell the user the data is on a higher plan rather than estimate it. That is meaningful operational context, though it omits pagination limits beyond the schema's stated caps.

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?

It is dense and front-loads the core purpose, but later sentences chain several parenthetical sub-clauses (locked lists, lockedCount, plan messaging) that make it somewhat run-on. Every sentence still carries information, so no major waste.

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 7-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by describing the return shape (boards, nextBoardCursor, locked/lockedCount) and the pagination protocol. The only gap is the absence of guidance on choosing this tool over its find_* siblings for the same entities.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces cursor semantics (nextCursor as cursor, nextBoardCursor as boardCursor) but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already documents for each 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?

The description names a specific verb+resource ('What the user has collected') and enumerates the saved item types (ads, site_pages, companies, following), which an agent can distinguish from siblings like sightglass_find_ads or sightglass_search_companies. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, keeping it below 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?

It gives real conditional guidance: omit kind for boards + count summary, pass kind for typed listings, and page via cursor/boardCursor. However it never states when to prefer this over sightglass_find_ads/sightglass_find_site_pages for the same entities, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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