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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful domain behavior by explaining what claude_requests means and that replies via comment_task appear in the teacher's notification bell.

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?

The description is front-loaded and compact: purpose first, then the special claude_requests workflow. It avoids filler, though the second sentence is dense and assumes understanding of the returned field.

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?

It covers the main purpose and highlights claude_requests, which is important because there is no output schema. It still leaves gaps around the overall return structure, the personal-board option, and default board selection when no parameters are provided.

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 description only mentions a class board, while the schema also supports class_id and a personal teacher board. It adds little beyond the schema and does not clarify class vs class_id vs personal, nor what happens if no parameter is supplied.

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 description states a clear read operation: it returns lists and cards of a class task board with IDs. It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings such as get_board or show_board, but the core purpose is understandable.

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?

It gives a concrete follow-up workflow for claude_requests: handle them and reply via comment_task. However, it does not explain when to use list_tasks instead of get_board, show_board, or other board-related siblings.

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