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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: results are permission-scoped to what the signed-in user can reach, returns are short summaries rather than full records, and filtering by script is possible.

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 the core list operation, then return shape, then the alternative and filtering hint. No sentence is wasted.

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?

The description covers purpose, scope, return shape, and the key sibling alternative, while annotations and the fully described schema handle safety and parameter details. It could be slightly richer about filtering behavior, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including pagination, search, script, and script_id. The description only reinforces narrowing by script name and does not clarify the distinction between script and script_id or add syntax beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List the storyboards') and narrows the scope to those the signed-in user can reach. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get-storyboard by saying it returns short summaries while the sibling returns one in full.

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 a clear routing rule for detail retrieval: call get-storyboard for a full record. It also notes narrowing by script name, but does not explicitly discuss when to use this versus search or list-scripts, so it falls just short of full alternative coverage.

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