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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: it confirms the call is lightweight (no component opened, no asset bytes fetched) and that the result is identifiers plus readiness rather than content.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the resource scope front-loaded and the behavioral constraint second. Every clause contributes information.

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 values need not be described, and the description still sketches them (identifiers plus readiness). The main residual gap is the unexplained required 'board' parameter, which the schema does not compensate for.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that the version must be exact and published (relevant to versionId), but leaves the required 'board' parameter entirely unexplained — no hint whether it is a name, slug, or identifier — and does not reconcile why versionId is optional.

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 ('Read') and enumerates the resource set ('drawings, 3D models and inspection artifacts') scoped to 'one exact published board version'. The clause 'without opening a component or fetching asset bytes' implicitly separates it from get_board_artifact, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

The phrase 'one exact published board version' implies the correct context (an inventory check for a pinned version, not a mutation or a file read), but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named despite many plausible siblings like get_board_artifact or list_board_files.

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