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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive, so the description correctly focuses on behavior beyond safety: it discloses the context-cost tradeoff and the concrete failure mode that detail:'full' can exceed a client's response limit on a large board. It stops short of describing auth needs or pagination, but the risk disclosure is genuinely actionable.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition, then the payload contents, then the escape hatches. The digest enumeration is somewhat dense but every item is decision-relevant; no filler sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-shape burden — and it does so by listing the digest's contents and warning about the 'full' cap. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 the baseline would be 3, but the description adds decision-relevant meaning: it explains what the 'digest' value actually yields and why 'full' should be reserved, rather than restating the enum labels.

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 ('returns a digest' of 'the shape of the whole board') and enumerates what the digest contains (counts, columns, projects, active sprint, Doing, overdue, next in Todo, recently closed). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_tasks, search, and get_my_work.

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?

Opens with explicit trigger phrases ('what's on my board?', 'what am I working on?'), names the alternatives for drilling down (list_tasks by column, sprint or project; search), and states exactly when detail:'full' is warranted versus overkill.

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