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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description reinforces rather than contradicts them with "Read-only" and "Returns metadata only." It adds detail the annotations cannot carry: the exact fields returned (name, design count, public share link status/link, whether a design was chosen), which matters because no output schema exists.

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 scope and default behavior, which is the right order. Minor redundancy between "Returns each board's name..." and "Returns metadata only," which could be tightened into one return-value sentence.

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?

No output schema, so the description supplies the return fields; no required parameters, so calling it bare is clearly safe. Organization-level scope, filter alternatives, and read-only nature are all covered — an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents all three parameters; the description adds usage meaning by framing site_id/client_id as optional narrowing filters and "resolves the client for you" as the difference between the two. It does not mention user_goal, but that parameter is self-documenting in the schema.

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 ("List the boards") and immediately scopes it to the organization. The second sentence explains what a board is and how it relates to sites/clients, which separates it from site-level listings like list_collections or list_sites.

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?

Gives an explicit default ("With no filters (recommended), returns every board") and an explicit narrow case ("Pass site_id or client_id only when you want to focus the list on one client"). Both the when and the when-not are stated, not inferred.

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