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

Annotations already provide the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the returned cardCount excludes archived cards, and custom columns are included alongside the standard set. This clarifies the scoping of results.

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?

The description is moderately long but every sentence earns its place: primary use case, return shape, and exclusionary guidance. It is front-loaded with the most critical usage information, though the phrase 'the number of cards on the board in it' is slightly redundant after 'cardCount'.

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-parameter read-only tool, this description is complete: it explains when to call it, what it returns (including field names), the archived-card exclusion, and how it differs from sibling tools. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description adequately covers return values instead.

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 states a concrete purpose: list all columns with their metadata, and explicitly frames it as the go-to for obtaining column ids for create_card, move_card, or list_cards. It identifies the resource (columns) and distinguishes itself from list_cards by noting it carries no cards.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use conditions: when you need a column id, when the user asks what lists a board has, or when counting cards per list. It also provides when-not-to-use guidance and explicitly points to list_cards or list tools as the alternative for actual card content.

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