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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the auth header formats (Bearer nsr_… or x-api-key), a free-tier rate limit of 20 calls/day, and that Pro-only fields are hidden on free keys.

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?

A single dense sentence listing the payload contents, followed by one compact sentence on auth and tiers. Front-loaded, no filler, every clause carries information.

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?

With no input params and no output schema, the description carries the interpretive burden and does it reasonably well by naming the content categories and the auth/rate-limit constraints. It could briefly state the return format or whether the response is prose vs structured, but nothing essential 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter semantics, and the auth requirement it mentions is not a schema parameter but is worth surfacing.

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 resource — the methodology behind the boards — and enumerates its contents (data sources, listing thresholds, cross-check bands, confidence and revenue grades, update cadence). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling data-query tools like get_site or revenue_signals.

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?

Usage is implied: this is a documentation/explainer tool an agent consults to interpret thresholds and grades. But the description never explicitly says when to call it versus the sibling data tools, nor does it state preconditions beyond the key requirement.

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