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 structurally. The description adds only the mild guardrail that board ids must come from this call rather than being invented, and says nothing about result size, ordering, or whether the list is paginated.

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 with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The last two sentences overlap slightly ('use the returned id' vs 'do not guess a board'), a small redundancy in otherwise tight text.

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, so return-value detail is not required, and this is a simple single-parameter list tool. Still, the description never states whether the list is complete or paginated, which matters given the undocumented offset parameter.

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% and the single offset parameter has no documentation in either the schema or the description. Since coverage is low, the description was expected to compensate, but it never mentions pagination, page size, or how offset should be used.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List this team's status boards') and scopes it to the team, which separates it cleanly from create_status_board in the sibling list. It stops short of naming any sibling or explaining how it differs from other list_* tools such as list_approved_causes.

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?

'Use the returned id. Do not guess a board.' implies the tool must be called before any operation that needs a board id, which is useful implied guidance. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative are given.

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