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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful detail of which config values are exposed, including the notable 'custody model (none)' disclosure, but says nothing about caching, freshness, or whether values are static.

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 dense clause with no filler, front-loaded with the resource and followed immediately by the payload contents. Every item listed 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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and the field enumeration does that adequately. It is slightly thin in not describing the response shape or types, but sufficient for a zero-arg config read.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there are no parameter semantics to document. The schema is fully closed (additionalProperties: false) with no inputs an agent must reason about.

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 names the resource ('Board settings') and enumerates the fields it exposes (chain, USDC contract, confirmations, fees, rate limits, custody model), so an agent knows exactly what this tool returns. It is not a tautology, though it leans on a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource construction.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this versus the sibling tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. In a set of 18 tools, the agent gets no routing signal at all from the description.

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