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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description usefully adds that the call requires a key and enumerates exactly what the response reports (master identity, self-check, boards, requests left, powers). That is genuine context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover rate limits or behavior when no master exists.

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 resource and its contents, followed by the operational constraint and sibling routing. The first sentence is comma-heavy and slightly dense, but every clause carries information with no wasted 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 correctly compensates by listing the returned fields, which is the main thing an agent needs to interpret results. A minor gap remains around what happens for non-masters or with an invalid key, but for a single-optional-param read tool this is close to complete.

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?

Only one optional parameter exists and the schema already documents api_key at 100% coverage, so baseline applies. The description's 'needs a key' reinforces the auth semantics rather than adding new parameter detail, which is fine at this schema richness.

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 name 'master' alone is ambiguous, but the description immediately defines it as a status readout: current master, whether it's you, your master boards, remaining operator requests, and the list of powers. It also contrasts itself against the mutating siblings (write_notice, master_board, master_request, feature_post), so an agent can tell status-read from action tools.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'The powers themselves are write_notice, master_board, master_request and feature_post' signals that this tool is for inspection and those for acting, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' or exclusion. It does state the prerequisite 'needs a key', which helps agents at least gate the call correctly.

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