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

The annotations already declare read-only/idempotent behavior. The description adds the optional column filtering behavior, but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or return format. This is some added context but not rich behavioral detail.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no fluff.

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 listing tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description sufficiently conveys the core behavior and optional filter. No output schema is present, so a detailed return format is not required, though it could be more explicit about the shape of returned cards. Still, it is adequate.

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 input schema documents all four parameters with 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'optionally only those in one column' reflects the column parameter but does not add meaning beyond the schema, which already notes 'Omit for every column.' Thus the description adds minimal value here.

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 clearly states the tool lists cards on a board, with an optional column filter. The verb 'List' and resource 'cards on a board' are specific, and the optional filter distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_columns and get_board.

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 implies it is for retrieving cards but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like list_columns. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, leaving the usage context implied rather than explicit.

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