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

With readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the safety profile is already disclosed. The description adds valuable behavior context by stating that health_check returns null when no health check exists, and it clarifies the nature of the data (e.g., 0-10 scale, same score across previous retrospectives). No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with front-loaded purpose ('Returns the health check'), followed by a precise list of contents and a clarifying null case. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy or 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 read-only tool with one parameter, the description fully covers what the tool returns (scores, alignment, turnout, previous data) and handles the null edge case. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by specifying the output contents. Complete for an agent to invoke the tool 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% for the single parameter board_id, and the schema already describes it as the board ID. The description does not add further parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific language ('Returns the health check of a retrospective') and enumerates distinct elements (score per category, alignment, turnout, previous scores). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like retro.board.summary.get and retro.board.roti.get.

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 when to use the tool by stating exactly what data it returns, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or conditions beyond the null case. No guidance on choosing between this and other board tools is provided, so usage context is 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.