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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds meaningful context: 'Costs no credits' and a full auth requirement (OAuth sign-in or an Authorization Bearer API key). That materially helps the agent handle invocation failures.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then usage, then cost, then auth. The auth sentence is long but actionable and earns its place. Minor verbosity from the full URL, but 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 zero-required-param creation tool with an output schema already documenting return values, the description covers purpose, cost, usage pattern, and authentication. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100% for the single optional 'name' parameter (including the default), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no param detail, which is acceptable but earns only the baseline.

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+resource ('Create a new, empty board and return it') and immediately situates it among siblings by noting that cards are added with the add_* tools. An agent can distinguish it from get_canvas, list_canvases, and rename_canvas without opening any 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?

Gives concrete usage context ('Use one board per plan or campaign') and points to the add_* tools as the follow-up path. It lacks an explicit when-not or a named alternative, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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