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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable context about the null summary for unfinished boards and the need to check is_finished. It also hints at return content (participant info and metadata), going beyond the safety annotation.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the primary purpose in the first sentence and adding a critical caveat in the second. Every word earns its place, with no redundant 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?

For a simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main behavior, including the null-summary edge case. It could be more explicit about the exact structure of participant info and metadata, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use 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 description coverage is 100%, with board_id fully described. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 it returns the summary of a retrospective with participant info and metadata, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like retro.board.health.get and retro.board.roti.get by explicitly focusing on the summary and its contents.

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 provides clear context by noting that it works for unfinished boards and that summary is null until wrapped up, implying when to expect meaningful data. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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