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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that output differs by plan tier — reassigns exist on Pro while free keys see 'would-nudges' — which is real behavioral context. However, it says nothing about auth/permissions, pagination, limits, or ordering semantics of 'latest'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence beginning with the verb, with no filler or repetition. Every clause contributes (resource, tier behavior, scoping), so it is efficient if slightly dense with parentheticals.

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 one-optional-param, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the tier-dependent variation, and the scoping behavior. Return format and pagination are omitted but are minor given the tool's simplicity and sibling context.

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 already 100% and the single board param is fully documented in the schema. The description only adds the implicit note that omitting board means 'all boards', which is marginal value over structured data.

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 (List) and resource (nudges and reassigns / would-nudges) with the scope of boards covered. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not distinguish itself from any sibling (scan_handoffs, usage_and_upgrade, weekly_report), even implicitly.

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 'for one board or all boards' implies the board parameter scopes the query, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites or exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools for overlapping logging/reporting needs.

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