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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it explains the project-scoped filtering guarantee and, crucially, that pre-binding boards (project_id NULL) are deliberately excluded. No contradiction; it enriches the 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?

Three tightly packed sentences, zero filler. The scoping guarantee is front-loaded, followed by the fallback guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-param, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the scope guarantee, the exclusion edge case, and the alternative. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the project_id parameter including its source tool. The description's mention of the binding adds behavioral meaning but doesn't expand on parameter syntax. 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Location boards bound to ONE project') and explicitly differentiates from sibling lab_list_locations by naming the alternative and its use case. An agent can immediately tell which tool to pick.

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?

Explicit 'when to use' is given: use this when you already know the project. The fallback case (NULL project_id / pre-binding boards) is also routed to lab_list_locations, leaving nothing ambiguous.

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