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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, and non-open-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: cross-board scope, deadline ordering, and default assignee logic. It does not discuss pagination or result limits, but for a simple read operation this is solid.

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, front-loaded with the core return set and scope, followed by the default behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple read tool with two optional params, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description provides everything needed: what it returns, ordering, scope, default assignee, and how to override it.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that assignee_id defaults to the connection owner and is used to fetch a teammate's tasks, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 specific resource (cards) with a clear scope (assigned to a person, across all boards) and ordering (soonest deadline first). This scope inherently differentiates it from siblings like get_kanban_card (single card) and get_kanban_board (board-specific).

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 provides clear context: defaults to the connection owner, but pass assignee_id to get a teammate's tasks. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., search_kanban_cards) or state when not to use it, 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.