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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, the description discloses the auth requirement ('Needs a person's key'), the failure mode ('an account with no claimed site has an empty board'), the default value of `show`, and ordering semantics ('oldest first'). These are exactly the operational facts annotations cannot carry.

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?

Labeled sections (When / Instead / Inputs / Returns / Fails) front-load the essentials with no filler, and every line adds information. The telegraphic fragments ('the next fix and every other by worth') cost a little parseability, keeping it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields for both modes (next, todo, slipped, fixed, waiting, note; tasks, note). Combined with the failure case, default, and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and the enum is already typed, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns above that by explaining what each enum value actually yields: board returns next/every fix by worth/slipped/fixed, queue returns tasks oldest-first — meaning the schema does not convey.

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 ('Gets the person's work across all their sites') and enumerates the two content modes, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings. The domain vocabulary ('by worth', 'what slipped') is slightly opaque on first read, which keeps it just below top marks.

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?

An explicit 'When:' clause names the triggering situations ('when you start work for the person', 'when a reply says tasks are waiting'), and the 'Instead:' clause routes to clickd_brief for single-site fixes and clickd_log_work for finishing a queued task. Both the positive case and the alternatives are stated, not inferred.

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