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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only and idempotent, covering side-effect expectations. The description adds specific behavioral context by listing exactly what elements of the board are returned, which goes beyond the annotation baseline without contradicting it.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, then concisely enumerates the output. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the key return elements (name, expiry, columns, card counts) despite the absence of an output schema. It does not mention error handling or authentication, but for a simple read operation with full annotations and schema coverage, this is reasonably complete.

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 description coverage is 100%: both board_id and password already have detailed descriptions, including guidance not to invent IDs. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but with full schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb 'Read' and the resource 'board by id', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_board, list_cards, and move_card. It also enumerates the returned data (name, expiry, columns, card counts), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 description gives clear context that this tool is for reading a board's details by its id, including column and card count information. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to select it when board-level data is needed.

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