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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), so the description is not obligated to restate safety. It adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: rendering depends on host capability ("where the host can", "some chats can't draw the board") and the agent should supply the link as a fallback. It does not mention failure behavior when rendering fails or whether the drawn output is persisted.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded before the invocation guidance and the fallback advice. The wording is conversational ("Give the person the link too") but every sentence carries actionable information, with no filler.

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 two-parameter, read-only display tool with an output schema, this covers what is needed: what it does, when to call it, and the degraded-rendering fallback. Return values need not be explained because an output schema exists, and the only residual gap is sibling disambiguation, which is minor here.

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%, including an explanation of the draft key and its relationship to create_boards, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description never mentions either parameter and adds nothing about when the optional draft key is needed, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Shows the person a board as laid out on the canvas, drawn in the chat" gives a specific verb and resource plus the rendering behavior, so the agent knows this is a visual display action rather than a data read. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like view_board or read_board, leaving ambiguity about which one to pick for non-visual inspection.

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?

Timing is explicit: "Call it after you create or change a cluster, or when they ask to see one," which covers both proactive and request-driven invocation. The gap is the absence of exclusions — nothing says when to prefer read_board or view_board instead, which matters given three similarly named siblings.

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