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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes further by detailing exactly what the digest includes (counts, columns, projects, active sprint, Doing items, overdue, next Todo, recently closed) and warns that 'full' can exceed response limits. This adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 front-loaded with usage conditions, then details the digest contents, then gives alternatives and warnings. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no filler. It is dense but highly informative.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully equips an agent to decide when to call it, what to expect from each detail level, and how to route to alternatives. Nothing critical is missing.

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 schema description covers 100% of the single parameter 'detail', but the tool description adds extra meaning by explaining that 'digest' is a briefing and 'full' is every field capped at 200 tasks. This goes beyond the schema's description, providing important practical context (the cap) that aids selection.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('get board state') and resource ('whole board'), and explicitly mentions the user intents it addresses ('what's on my board?'). It also differentiates from siblings by naming list_tasks and search as drill-down alternatives, making it unmistakable.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance tied to user queries, and when-not-to-use guidance for detail:'full' due to response limits. It names the alternative tools (list_tasks, search) and explains when they are appropriate, leaving no ambiguity.

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