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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing what the listing returns: each board's key plus aggregate counts of ad-buying companies and public names, which is unusual in a tool with no output schema.

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?

A single sentence with the action and return contents front-loaded, followed by a short chaining instruction. No filler; every clause conveys actionable 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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing results, and it does so adequately by naming the returned fields and the downstream use of the key. It stops short of noting whether the list is paginated or how large it may be.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering arguments exist by describing a flat 'list every board' operation, and it hints the returned key is the input for get_trade_board.

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 and resource ('List every trade board') and enumerates the fields returned (key, count of companies buying ads, count of public names). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_trade_board by explaining that the list supplies the key the getter consumes.

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 routes the agent: enumerate here first, then 'Use a key with get_trade_board' for detail. This is a clear usage pattern, though it does not state any exclusion conditions (e.g., when to prefer search_sponsors or get_sponsor instead).

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