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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: only public boards are returned, a backend cap of 50 with 20 shown, that an empty prompt_prefix_en is a silent no-op, and that previewing avoids spending quota. These are exactly the traits annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the essential 'START HERE' routing before the caveats, and every sentence carries actionable information. It is dense and slightly long, but no sentence is 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?

With no output schema, the description fills the gap by describing what an entry contains (location_id, prompt_prefix_en), the result limits, and the two remediation paths. Nothing needed to call or interpret the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description nonetheless adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining why prompt_prefix_en matters (the exact 'Location: …' text appended) and why the preview picture can contradict the prefix text, motivating the `preview` flag.

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 verb+resource ('List location boards') plus ordering ('newest first') and immediately positions itself as the entry point for obtaining a location_id used by lab_generate/lab_animate. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like lab_get_location, lab_list_project_locations, and lab_create_location.

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?

Explicitly says 'START HERE', explains the downstream use (feeding lab_generate/lab_animate), and names concrete alternatives for the two failure paths: lab_enrich_location_prefix for an empty prefix and lab_create_location when a place is missing. The agent is told what to do in each branch.

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