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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses sorting order ('newest first'), default inclusion of unfinished boards, the meaning of finished_only, and the is_finished flag in responses. It also clarifies team_id requirements, adding behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each sentence provides distinct useful information without redundancy.

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?

Covers ordering, filtering, unfinished board behavior, and team_id condition. It also hints at the response containing is_finished. Though there's no output schema, the description does a good job for a list tool.

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?

All four parameters are documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds a small insight about team_id being conditional ('with a single team it can be omitted'), but largely relies on the schema's existing descriptions.

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 'Returns retrospectives (boards) of a team, newest first', which specifies both the resource and ordering. It also notes inclusion of unfinished boards, distinguishing it from a generic list tool, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with retro.boards.search.

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 gives clear context about when to include team_id ('Pass team_id when several teams are available') and how to filter by period via since/until. No explicit mention of alternatives like retro.boards.search, but the conditional guidance for team_id is specific.

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