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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by enumerating what the compact payload contains (key, title, priority, assignee, due date, labels, counters) and what it omits (descriptions, checklists), which matters since there is no output schema.

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, zero filler, with the core read behavior front-loaded and the sibling routing appended last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 correctly compensates by describing the returned card shape and pointing to get_kanban_card for depth. It omits any mention of board size limits or pagination, a minor gap for a board that could hold many cards.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% – the schema already explains project_id and its origin (list_kanban_projects). The description adds no format, syntax, or lookup detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Read a board: its columns and the cards in them') and immediately scopes what the board read contains. It distinguishes itself from get_kanban_card by declaring that cards come back COMPACT, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative for full card text ('Call get_kanban_card for the full text of one card'), giving a clear routing rule. It does not cover other siblings such as search_kanban_cards or get_my_kanban_tasks, and gives no explicit when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5.

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